29 Aug
2018
29 Aug
'18
5:25 p.m.
On 08/29/2018 07:46 AM, William Pechter wrote:
Also... If you run on the internet remember documented
security exploits
are decades old. I recommend no open ports except for ssh if it will
build and maybe UUCP.
I'm working on a Retro Computing Networking project with a few other
people and I think it would be a benefit for things like running 4.3 BSD
and other old OSs in a relatively safe environment.
I'm bringing this up on TUSH for two reasons:
1) I think THUS members could benefit from RetroNet
2) I (we) would very much appreciate any suggestions or desires that
the THUS community would like to see in such a network.
The idea behind RetroNet is two fold:
1) Create a network of interconnected VPNs between interested parties.
2) Provide ISP like services over said interconnections.
Our hopes are for RetroNet to be able to provide a sandbox / small pool
/ isolated network where members can interconnect with each other (if
they want to) similar to the Internet, but with much less exposure. (We
are planing on RetroNet not having direct Internet connectivity.) We
are also hoping and planing to be able to carry any Ethernet based
traffic between sites, routed or not.
I (we) would be very interested in any input that THUS members might be
able to provide. Particularly what you might like to see in such a network.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
29 Aug
29 Aug
5:49 p.m.
Am 29. August 2018 19:25:28 MESZ schrieb Grant Taylor via TUHS
<tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>rg>:
On 08/29/2018 07:46 AM, William Pechter wrote:
Nice idea if UUCP is an option? Now dreaming about the 'internet' i used where i
started with UNIX (1985)
KR,
Andreas
Also... If you run on the internet remember
documented security
exploits
are decades old. I recommend no open ports
except for ssh if it will
build and maybe UUCP.
I'm working on a Retro Computing Networking project with a few other
people and I think it would be a benefit for things like running 4.3
BSD
and other old OSs in a relatively safe environment.
I'm bringing this up on TUSH for two reasons:
1) I think THUS members could benefit from RetroNet
2) I (we) would very much appreciate any suggestions or desires that
the THUS community would like to see in such a network.
The idea behind RetroNet is two fold:
1) Create a network of interconnected VPNs between interested parties.
2) Provide ISP like services over said interconnections.
Our hopes are for RetroNet to be able to provide a sandbox / small pool
/ isolated network where members can interconnect with each other (if
they want to) similar to the Internet, but with much less exposure.
(We
are planing on RetroNet not having direct Internet connectivity.) We
are also hoping and planing to be able to carry any Ethernet based
traffic between sites, routed or not.
I (we) would be very interested in any input that THUS members might be
able to provide. Particularly what you might like to see in such a
network. 
6:04 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 08/29/2018 07:46 AM, William Pechter wrote:
Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been using the name RetroNET as well.
I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was about to launch a small
pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators running SVR3, with the hope for many more
interconnected systems.
That said, maybe we could pool our efforts? I'd be happy to share the domain name
with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what I'd like to see.
-Seth
--
Seth Morabito
Poulsbo, WA
web(a)loomcom.com
Also... If you run on the internet remember
documented security exploits
are decades old. I recommend no open ports except for ssh if it will
build and maybe UUCP.
I'm working on a Retro Computing Networking project with a few other
people and I think it would be a benefit for things like running 4.3 BSD
and other old OSs in a relatively safe environment.
I'm bringing this up on TUSH for two reasons:
1) I think THUS members could benefit from RetroNet
2) I (we) would very much appreciate any suggestions or desires that
the THUS community would like to see in such a network.
The idea behind RetroNet is two fold:
1) Create a network of interconnected VPNs between interested parties.
2) Provide ISP like services over said interconnections.
Our hopes are for RetroNet to be able to provide a sandbox / small pool
/ isolated network where members can interconnect with each other (if
they want to) similar to the Internet, but with much less exposure. (We
are planing on RetroNet not having direct Internet connectivity.) We
are also hoping and planing to be able to carry any Ethernet based
traffic between sites, routed or not.
I (we) would be very interested in any input that THUS members might be
able to provide. Particularly what you might like to see in such a network.
6:05 p.m.
On 08/29/2018 11:49 AM, Andreas Hein wrote:
Nice idea if UUCP is an option? Now dreaming about the
'internet' i used
where i started with UNIX (1985)
We have been discussing UUCP options. The short list is:
· UUCP over SSH
· UUCP over TCP (is there an encrypted UUCP over TCP+SSL?)
· UUCP bag files transferred some other means.
· UUCP over some sort of emulated serial connection
If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them.
I expect that we will be talking about an email gateway at some point if
people are interested.
We already have a Usenet feed that we will be making available via NNTP
and UUCP.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:26 p.m.
Count me in. I think a UUCP over ssh would be nice as would an SSL version. I would like
to see UUCP over ether as serial for backwards compatibility to talk to old machines and
emulation.
Some of the kid's I know would be blown away by Cnews and television or transported
over Internet or PPP links.
Bill
Sent from BlueMail
On Aug 29, 2018, 14:06, at 14:06, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
wrote:
On 08/29/2018 11:49 AM, Andreas Hein wrote:
Nice idea if UUCP is an option? Now dreaming
about the 'internet' i
used
where i started with UNIX (1985)
We have been discussing UUCP options. The short list is:
· UUCP over SSH
· UUCP over TCP (is there an encrypted UUCP over TCP+SSL?)
· UUCP bag files transferred some other means.
· UUCP over some sort of emulated serial connection
If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them.
I expect that we will be talking about an email gateway at some point
if
people are interested.
We already have a Usenet feed that we will be making available via NNTP
and UUCP.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:33 p.m.
On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been using
the name RetroNET
as well. I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was
about to launch a small pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators
running SVR3, with the hope for many more interconnected systems.
*gulp*
So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-)
We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and
have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the
main website isn't up yet.
We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the
#retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org)
That said, maybe we could pool our efforts? I'd
be happy to share the
domain name with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what
I'd like to see.
~sigh~of~relief~
I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet.
As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct
relation to retro computing.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:36 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
As much as anything else, the idea is to build a
community of friendly folks
that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct relation to
retro computing.
So just a thought. A good curator, looking at you Warren, helps keep
things sane. If your fun project takes off, be picky about who you let
in and what sort of behaviour you will tolerate. One toxic person can
chase everyone away.
6:38 p.m.
Count me in. Do we need to work up a UUCP mapping project.
Also... Would a pgp encrypted mail system with decryption of messages at the endpoint make
sense?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:34
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet…
On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been using
the name RetroNET
as well. I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was
about to launch a small pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators
running SVR3, with the hope for many more interconnected systems.
*gulp*
So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-)
We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and
have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the
main website isn't up yet.
We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the
#retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org)
That said, maybe we could pool our efforts? I'd
be happy to share the
domain name with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what
I'd like to see.
~sigh~of~relief~
I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet.
As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct
relation to retro computing.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:42 p.m.
On 08/29/2018 12:26 PM, William Pechter wrote:
Count me in.
Cool!
Welcome!
We're currently hanging out in the #retronet group on the Synchronet
network (I'm accessing through irc.chivanet.org).
I think a UUCP over ssh would be nice as would an SSL
version.
I've personally done UUCP over SSH multiple times.
It looks like TCP port 540 is reserved for UUCP over TCP and TCP port
4031 is reserved for UUCP over SSL.
So, we'll definitely be offering those services inside of RetroNet.
Currently the idea is to make services available inside of RetroNet. I
don't know how many services will be openly available across the
Internet. Primarily for security / safety reasons.
That being said, I think we are planing on a gateway for things. We're
certainly willing to talk about other options too.
I would like to see UUCP over ether as serial for
backwards compatibility
to talk to old machines and emulation.
I / we would like to know more about the "over ether as serial" part.
I'd think the goal would be to have RS-232 (et al) serial ports that can
connect to retro computers and make things look like what they would
expect to see. That being said, we will either need an RS-232 (et al)
serial port on a gateway, or something else to translate from serial to
likely an IP~>telnet connection.
If you have ideas, please bring them and share them.
Some of the kid's I know would be blown away by
Cnews and television or
transported over Internet or PPP links.
Yep. :-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:48 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On 08/29/2018 12:36 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
So just a thought. A good curator, looking at you
Warren, helps keep
things sane. If your fun project takes off, be picky about who you let
in and what sort of behaviour you will tolerate. One toxic person can
chase everyone away.
You make a good point Larry.
I'm sort of planing on putting some technological bollards in place to
make it so that it's harder for a bad apple to spoil the rest of the
barrel. We've already discussed NetFlow for monitoring. I'm assuming
that there will be firewalls (at least reverse path filtering) in place
to make it harder for people to spoof things.
Still something worth keeping in mind.
I'm sort of hoping that RetroNet members will sort of self regulate like
ham radio operators have a tendance to do.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:50 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:42 PM Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
wrote:
...
It looks like TCP port 540 is reserved for UUCP over TCP
I think that's either 'e' or 't' uucico protocol.
I've forgoten (and I
wrote 'e'). But look at the uucico code in either a late version og
Honey-Dan-BER or the Taylor UUCP rewrite, as I think they have all those
protocols.
I / we would like to know more about the "over ether as serial" part.
We can take this off line. As I said, it been done a numberof times with
simh and the like. The key is that simh creates a 'serial line' on a TCP
port. You tell UNIX to hang a login off it and then you telnet or
whatever to that port. The older system running in simh, thinks it has a
serial line. It pretty much just works; al biet is slow as hell and chews
up a ton of resources.
If you have ideas, please bring them and share them.
You just need to engage of a us old folks that run UUCP back in the day ;-)
Clem
ᐧ
6:50 p.m.
Your message dated: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:26:38 -0400
--------
I'm interested as well... One thing you may want to consider
is using the "pound" ssl wrapper (http://www.apsis.ch/pound/) to
handle the encryption of traffic. I use this on my home-brewed
webserver that doesn't do ssl itself. Pound is used as a ssl
wrapper and forwards all public port 443 traffic over to port 80 on
the internal webserver. It also redirects public port 80 over
to the public port 443...
-ron
Count me in=2E=C2=A0 I think a UUCP over ssh would be nice as would an SSL =
version=2E=C2=A0 I would like to see UUCP over ether as serial for backward=
s compatibility to talk to old machines and emulation=2E
Some of the kid'=
s I know would be blown away by Cnews and television or transported over In=
ternet or PPP links=2E
Bill
===============================================================================
Ron Young rly1(a)embarqmail.com
6:53 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
Speaking of Warren and UUCP (and wise words from Larry here, but I'm going
off in a slightly different direction).
Warren was working on getting a UUCP network up and running again to
commemorate the Unix 50th anniversary. I was (and probably still am) on the
mailing list, but activity has kind of petered off as of late. Anyway, you
may want to get in touch with him and see if you can leverage some of that
work or perhaps join forces.
- Dan C.
As much as
anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
folks
that want to play / learn / help each other,
likely in direct relation to
retro computing.
So just a thought. A good curator, looking at you Warren, helps keep
things sane. If your fun project takes off, be picky about who you let
in and what sort of behaviour you will tolerate. One toxic person can
chase everyone away.
6:54 p.m.
On 08/29/2018 12:38 PM, William Pechter wrote:
Count me in.
:-)
Do we need to work up a UUCP mapping project.
I'm sure we will want one at some point.
I know that we're not there yet.
Also... Would a pgp encrypted mail system with
decryption of messages
at the endpoint make sense?
I think that might be further down the road. But I see no reason why
such can't be discussed.
I assume that:
1) There would be a central directory (DNS / LDAP) that has public
certs / keys for people that wanted to participate.
2) The email gateway would opportunistically encrypt messages that were
unencrypted and relay them to the internal destination.
(I'm assuming that some people will want to run their own SMTP server.)
(We can easily provide a community SMTP server too.)
Aside: One of the ideas of RetroNet is to provide a safe place for
people to play and learn about technologies, like how to run their own
SMTP server.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:57 p.m.
Ala DZ11 support in the KS10 emulator of SIMH ;)
On 8/29/2018 2:50 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
We can take this off line. As I said, it been done a numberof times
with simh and the like. The key is that simh creates a 'serial line'
on a TCP port. You tell UNIX to hang a login off it and then you
telnet or whatever to that port. The older system running in simh,
thinks it has a serial line. It pretty much just works; al biet is
slow as hell and chews up a ton of resources.
7 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
One thing that may make sense on the low power front... I emulated 3 simultaneous Vaxes
on one RasPi...
If you are less than secure (BSD 4.X) at least the host can be up to date with emulation.
Running 4.2 with Sendmail 5 scares me. Emulated UUCP and maps less so.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com>
To: Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com>
Cc: TUHS main list <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>rg>, Grant Taylor
<gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>
Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:54
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet???
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
Speaking of Warren and UUCP (and wise words from Larry here, but I'm going
off in a slightly different direction).
Warren was working on getting a UUCP network up and running again to
commemorate the Unix 50th anniversary. I was (and probably still am) on the
mailing list, but activity has kind of petered off as of late. Anyway, you
may want to get in touch with him and see if you can leverage some of that
work or perhaps join forces.
- Dan C.
As much as
anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
folks
that want to play / learn / help each other,
likely in direct relation to
retro computing.
So just a thought. A good curator, looking at you Warren, helps keep
things sane. If your fun project takes off, be picky about who you let
in and what sort of behaviour you will tolerate. One toxic person can
chase everyone away.
7:28 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On 29 Aug 2018, at 20:53, Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
Speaking of Warren and UUCP (and wise words from Larry here, but I'm going off in a
slightly different direction).
Warren was working on getting a UUCP network up and running again to commemorate the Unix
50th anniversary. I was (and probably still am) on the mailing list, but activity has kind
of petered off as of late. Anyway, you may want to get in touch with him and see if you
can leverage some of that work or perhaps join forces.
Have you considered asking Peter Honeyman if he wishes to collaborate in the UUCP project
(the “Honey” in HoneyDanBer UUCP)?
Arrigo
7:30 p.m.
Right but for goodness sake, try to make a DH11 work; not a DZ11!!! Real
DZ11'S were SW pigs and consumed a measurable percentage of a vax,
particularly when running uucico(8) (they are interrupt crazy). It is one
of the reasons why the Unix community in those days always recommended Able
DH/DMs on Vaxen.
Clem
ᐧ
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:57 PM Arthur Krewat <krewat(a)kilonet.net> wrote:
Ala DZ11 support in the KS10 emulator of SIMH ;)
On 8/29/2018 2:50 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
We can take this off line. As I said, it been
done a numberof times
with simh and the like. The key is that simh creates a
'serial line' on a
TCP port. You tell UNIX to hang a login off it and then you telnet or
whatever to that port. The older system running in simh, thinks it has a
serial line. It pretty much just works; al biet is slow as hell and chews
up a ton of resources.
7:35 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On 08/29/2018 01:00 PM, William Pechter wrote:
One thing that may make sense on the low power
front... I emulated 3
simultaneous Vaxes on one RasPi...
Would those be independent VAXen? Or would they be different CPU
cabinets of a multi-CPU 780? Was that 785 or something like that?
If you are less than secure (BSD 4.X) at least the
host can be up to date
with emulation. Running 4.2 with Sendmail 5 scares me. Emulated UUCP
and maps less so.
This is exactly why we want RetroNet to be a walled garden. Easy for
members to join and access yet separated from the Big Bad Internet™ for
that very reason.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
7:43 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
They were 3 different 11/780s. The 785 was a (DEC Germany as the Field Service rumor
went) 7400 Schotky rework of the 11/780 TTL as a midlife speed kicker. IIRC, it had a
higher clock and was about 1.5x the 780. The 11/782 was conjoined twin 11/780s in a
master slave config. I heard of 11/787s done with dual 11/785s but never saw them in my
Field Service days.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:35
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet???
On 08/29/2018 01:00 PM, William Pechter wrote:
One thing that may make sense on the low power
front... I emulated 3
simultaneous Vaxes on one RasPi...
Would those be independent VAXen? Or would they be different CPU
cabinets of a multi-CPU 780? Was that 785 or something like that?
If you are less than secure (BSD 4.X) at least the
host can be up to date
with emulation. Running 4.2 with Sendmail 5 scares me. Emulated UUCP
and maps less so.
This is exactly why we want RetroNet to be a walled garden. Easy for
members to join and access yet separated from the Big Bad Internet™ for
that very reason.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:09 p.m.
LOL - very true, Clem. That was a shameless bit of self-promotion. From
what I can tell, SIMH does not support a DH11. Yet.
But when is an emulated interrupt a bad thing? Except for the idle loop
that may or may not be optimized, the rest is balls-to-the-wall CPU
bound anyway. And these days, even emulated, we're orders of magnitude
faster than the original hardware.
http://simh.trailing-edge.narkive.com/Sc9HBFZU/multiple-telnet-ports-in-sim…
I recognize a familiar name in there ;)
But yeah, when a DZ11 was blazing away at 19200 baud (I hacked the
TOPS-10 6.03A we had at LIRICS to support it), it made the system crawl.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming...
On 8/29/2018 3:30 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
Right but for goodness sake, try to make a DH11
work; not a DZ11!!!
Real DZ11'S were SW pigs and consumed a measurable percentage of a
vax, particularly when running uucico(8) (they are interrupt crazy).
It is one of the reasons why the Unix community in those days always
recommended Able DH/DMs on Vaxen.
Clem
ᐧ
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:57 PM Arthur Krewat <krewat(a)kilonet.net
<mailto:krewat@kilonet.net>> wrote:
Ala DZ11 support in the KS10 emulator of SIMH ;)
On 8/29/2018 2:50 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
We can take this off line. As I said, it been done a numberof
times with simh and the like. The key is that simh creates a
'serial line' on a TCP port. You tell UNIX to hang a login off it
and then you telnet or whatever to that port. The older system
running in simh, thinks it has a serial line. It pretty much
just works; al biet is slow as hell and chews up a ton of resources.
8:14 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On 08/29/2018 01:28 PM, Arrigo Triulzi wrote:
Have you considered asking Peter Honeyman if he wishes
to collaborate
in the UUCP project (the “Honey” in HoneyDanBer UUCP)?
I hadn't thought about it.
Please reply to me directly / off list with contact information if you
have it and I'll happily send him an email.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:21 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:38:20PM -0400, William Pechter wrote:
Count me in. Do we need to work up a UUCP mapping
project.
Argh, argh! I did a lot of this last year. It's all on Github at
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/
We got as far as recreating this microcosm of Usenet
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/4.3BSD/uucp.png
before it all petered out!
Cheers, Warren
8:22 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:38:20PM -0400, William Pechter wrote:
Count me in. Do we need to work up a UUCP mapping
project.
Oh, and the mailing list for my effort is here:
https://minnie.tuhs.org//pipermail/uucp/
Warren
8:58 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:17 PM Arthur Krewat <krewat(a)kilonet.net> wrote:
LOL - very true, Clem. That was a shameless bit of
self-promotion. From
what I can tell, SIMH does not support a DH11. Yet.
Note I have not tried this .... but from the simh mailing list:
* The UNIBUS DH11 and DHU11 had 16 lines per interface
* The QBUS DHV11 had 8 lines per interface
* The QBUS CXY08 was DHU/DHV compatible and had 8 lines
* The QBUS CXA16 " " " " " " " 16
lines
*Supposely, the DHV11 works ..... its been on my >>round tuit<< list for a
while to verify!!!!*
But when is an emulated interrupt a bad thing? Except for the idle loop
that may or may not be optimized, the rest is balls-to-the-wall CPU bound
anyway. And these days, even emulated, we're orders of magnitude faster
than the original hardware.
Yeah, but since the 780 was slow on interrupt processing, why stress it any
more thsan you have too.
http://simh.trailing-edge.narkive.com/Sc9HBFZU/multiple-telnet-ports-in-sim…
I recognize a familiar name in there ;)
Yeah a couple of them ;-)
But yeah, when a DZ11 was blazing away at 19200 baud (I hacked the TOPS-10
6.03A we had at LIRICS to support it), it made the system crawl.
No doubt. CMU and MIT had front ends that put the serial lines on
dedicated PDP-11s in front of the 10's - so the Tops (or ITS) only saw
canonicalized I/O and it made a huge difference for those systems. By the
time Vaxen, I don't think DEC had yet realized what a problem the DZ was.
The DH's issue was cost (and space) since it was implemented in MSI TTL
and took up a full 'PDP-11 System Unit' on the bus. The DZ11 gave you 8
serial ports in a single PDP-11 slot, which was a huge win.
ᐧ
30 Aug
30 Aug
12:02 a.m.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Arthur Krewat wrote:
And I'm ashamed to say, I had volunteered to be
at least a leaf node,
and never completed the task(s).
Me too, I'm afraid, but I suddenly got back into Amateur radio again after
a lapse of a few year for health reasons (and my workbench has overflowed
onto my dining table).
It's still on my TODO list, though (I think I snared "utzoo" for my UUCP
node, and quite likely will resurrect one of my ACSnet nodes for any
Aussies taking part).
-- Dave (VK2KFU)
12:13 a.m.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Clem Cole wrote:
But yeah, when a DZ11 was blazing away at 19200
baud (I hacked
the TOPS-10 6.03A we had at LIRICS to support it), it made the
system crawl.
No doubt. CMU and MIT had front ends that put the serial lines on
dedicated PDP-11s in front of the 10's - so the Tops (or ITS) only saw
canonicalized I/O and it made a huge difference for those systems. By
the time Vaxen, I don't think DEC had yet realized what a problem the DZ
was.
Did the Aussie DZ-11 drivers (there were two versions) not make it out of
the country? They are on the UNSW tapes, and I seem to recall a thread
about this... I don't know how fast we drove them, but I doubt whether it
was 19200; probably 9600 for the lucky few and 2400 for the plebs.
-- Dave
5:54 p.m.
On 29 Aug 2018 11:25 -0600, from tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org (Grant Taylor via TUHS):
Our hopes are for RetroNet to be able to provide a
sandbox / small pool /
isolated network where members can interconnect with each other (if they
want to) similar to the Internet, but with much less exposure. (We are
planing on RetroNet not having direct Internet connectivity.) We are also
hoping and planing to be able to carry any Ethernet based traffic between
sites, routed or not.
This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if I'd be eligible. What
would be the entry criteria? 20 years professional experience as
sysadmin on 4.3BSD? Physical PDP-11/780 running in the closet?
--
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael(a)kjorling.se
“The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person
is to think you know what you’re doing.” (Bret Victor)
6:05 p.m.
The idea behind RetroNet is two fold:
1) Create a network of interconnected VPNs between interested parties.
2) Provide ISP like services over said interconnections.
we have that already. One of these is <a target="_blank"
href="https://livingcomputers.org/">https://livingcomputers.or…
6:11 p.m.
On 08/30/2018 11:54 AM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if
I'd be eligible.
I bet that you do.
What would be the entry criteria? 20 years
professional experience as
sysadmin on 4.3BSD? Physical PDP-11/780 running in the closet?
Valid question.
I'm of the opinion that the entry criteria are a client that can talk to
the RetroNet network (more on that in a moment) and a desire to participate.
I'll also say that a healthy interest / curiosity in anything that runs
over / through RetroNet would be beneficial. But if you want to use
RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then you
should be able to do so. (Assuming that you and your buddies are
RetroNet members.)
As for client, I'm initially targeting something like a Raspberry Pi or
any SOHO router that will run OpenWRT / DD-WRT / Tomato. Ideally I'd
like to re-use existing images (possibly with a different kernel) and
add on packages. I'd like those to be the almost-turn-key
installations. Almost as in you start with that and do some things on top.
If you want to roll your own Linux install that supports the documented
specifications, then more power to you.
One of the purposes of RetroNet is to enable members to be able to
participate and use the RetroNet for what ever they want (as long as
it's legal and does not adversely effect RetroNet or members). Another
purpose for RetroNet is to provide a network that we can provide a safe
environment for people that want to learn things and help /
encouragement to do so. Sort of like a mentor in a sandbox.
Aside: I've been using the term "member". I don't want that to
convey
any meaning other than someone that has signed up and has a RetroNet
account. I'm not anticipating any membership fees or anything like
that. Down the road we may set up something like a tip jar to help
cover costs like domain name subscription or other nominal costs.
In short, if you want to play in the sand box and you play well with
others, come on down. Let's have fun, learn, play.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:17 p.m.
On 08/30/2018 12:05 PM, Donald ODona wrote:
we have that already. One of these is
https://livingcomputers.org/
Nothing on the Living Computers website seemed even close to what I'm
envisioning RetroNet to be.
Would you please clarify what you're referring to? Or provide a better
link to a page talking about the internetworking of individual home
computers?
TL;DR: RetroNet is meant to enable friends to interconnect their
computers (what ever they are) at their houses to do what ever they want.
One of the uses of said network is to allow people who want to learn how
to set up a web / email / dns / etc server to be able to do it in a safe
place (read: NOT the Internet) with help from mentors.
I don't get the impression that any of that when I skim the Living
Computers website.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11:42 p.m.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
[ Excellent screed elided ]
In short, if you want to play in the sand box and you
play well with
others, come on down. Let's have fun, learn, play.
Count me in; as a reborn electronics enthusiast (and a Unix user since
Edition 5) I've been looking for an excuse to buy a Raspberry Pi (as
opposed to the usual articles in the usual magazines), and this sounds
just the ticket!
And if subdomains are available then of course I'll contribute (as if I
wouldn't anyway).
-- Dave (VK2KFU)
31 Aug
31 Aug
1:09 a.m.
I'm playing with the idea of hooking up a modem to my wireline phone.
I'd like to keep an eye on my late mother-in-law's place remotely. Best
I can get out there is DSL, and it ain't snappy, so one idea is to get
two Telebit Trailblazer modems, one here, one out there, dial into the
place, pull imagery via UUCP. Trailies spoof UUCP natively, and they
deal nicely with bad connectivity. One could take that one step further
and bring back a bit of Usenet.
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 08/30/2018 11:54 AM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if
I'd be eligible.
I bet that you do.
What would be the entry criteria? 20 years
professional experience as
sysadmin on 4.3BSD? Physical PDP-11/780 running in the closet?
Valid question.
I'm of the opinion that the entry criteria are a client that can talk to
the RetroNet network (more on that in a moment) and a desire to
participate.
I'll also say that a healthy interest / curiosity in anything that runs
over / through RetroNet would be beneficial. But if you want to use
RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then you
should be able to do so. (Assuming that you and your buddies are
RetroNet members.)
As for client, I'm initially targeting something like a Raspberry Pi or
any SOHO router that will run OpenWRT / DD-WRT / Tomato. Ideally I'd
like to re-use existing images (possibly with a different kernel) and
add on packages. I'd like those to be the almost-turn-key
installations. Almost as in you start with that and do some things on top.
If you want to roll your own Linux install that supports the documented
specifications, then more power to you.
One of the purposes of RetroNet is to enable members to be able to
participate and use the RetroNet for what ever they want (as long as
it's legal and does not adversely effect RetroNet or members). Another
purpose for RetroNet is to provide a network that we can provide a safe
environment for people that want to learn things and help /
encouragement to do so. Sort of like a mentor in a sandbox.
Aside: I've been using the term "member". I don't want that to
convey
any meaning other than someone that has signed up and has a RetroNet
account. I'm not anticipating any membership fees or anything like
that. Down the road we may set up something like a tip jar to help
cover costs like domain name subscription or other nominal costs.
In short, if you want to play in the sand box and you play well with
others, come on down. Let's have fun, learn, play.
1:12 a.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
I'd like to get in on this, too.
Dan Cross wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com
<mailto:lm@mcvoy.com>> wrote:
As much as anything else, the idea is to build a
community of
friendly folks
that want to play / learn / help each other,
likely in direct
relation to
retro computing.
So just a thought. A good curator, looking at you Warren, helps keep
things sane. If your fun project takes off, be picky about who you let
in and what sort of behaviour you will tolerate. One toxic person can
chase everyone away.
Speaking of Warren and UUCP (and wise words from Larry here, but I'm
going off in a slightly different direction).
Warren was working on getting a UUCP network up and running again to
commemorate the Unix 50th anniversary. I was (and probably still am) on
the mailing list, but activity has kind of petered off as of late.
Anyway, you may want to get in touch with him and see if you can
leverage some of that work or perhaps join forces.
- Dan C.
1:15 a.m.
Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that here, as I have static
IPs.
Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is cheaper and easier than
dealing with a hoster..
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been
using the name RetroNET as
well. I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was
about to launch a small pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators
running SVR3, with the hope for many more interconnected systems.
*gulp*
So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-)
We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and
have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the
main website isn't up yet.
We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the
#retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org)
That said, maybe we could pool our efforts?
I'd be happy to share the
domain name with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what
I'd like to see.
~sigh~of~relief~
I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet.
As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct
relation to retro computing.
1:17 a.m.
Same. I've used UUCP over IP for a long time, but my German peer went
away. UUCP over modem I'm going to rig in the near future, after some
retail therapy, like two Telebit Trailblazer (have one already) and a
central office simulator.
William Pechter wrote:
Count me in. I think a UUCP over ssh would be nice as
would an SSL
version. I would like to see UUCP over ether as serial for backwards
compatibility to talk to old machines and emulation.
Some of the kid's I know would be blown away by Cnews and television or
transported over Internet or PPP links.
Bill
Sent from BlueMail <http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=13187>
On Aug 29, 2018, at 14:06, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
<mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>> wrote:
On 08/29/2018 11:49 AM, Andreas Hein wrote:
Nice idea if UUCP is an option? Now dreaming about the
'internet' i used
where i started with UNIX (1985)
We have been discussing UUCP options. The short list is:
· UUCP over SSH
· UUCP over TCP (is there an encrypted UUCP over TCP+SSL?)
· UUCP bag files transferred some other means.
· UUCP over some sort of emulated serial connection
If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them.
I expect that we will be talking about an email gateway at some point if
people are interested.
We already have a Usenet feed that we will be making available via NNTP
and UUCP.
1:20 a.m.
If one wanted to do this old-school, like with modems ... just
wondering, who still has
- a wire-line phone,
- a modem,
- and hails from where?
Flat rate local toll and long distance is fairly prevalent in the US.
International long distance is a different story. How does that look
like elsewhere, who has a metered land-line?
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 08/29/2018 11:49 AM, Andreas Hein wrote:
Nice idea if UUCP is an option? Now dreaming
about the 'internet' i
used where i started with UNIX (1985)
We have been discussing UUCP options. The short list is:
· UUCP over SSH
· UUCP over TCP (is there an encrypted UUCP over TCP+SSL?)
· UUCP bag files transferred some other means.
· UUCP over some sort of emulated serial connection
If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them.
I expect that we will be talking about an email gateway at some point if
people are interested.
We already have a Usenet feed that we will be making available via NNTP
and UUCP.
1:37 a.m.
New subject: RetroNet… Virtual is cheap.
Actually, my virtual machine @Digital Ocean has been $5.25/month. Can't get static
IP on my Fios for that. Domain registration and DNS via Google Domains is another buck
per month...
I run mail, web and DNS for $6.25/month on FreeBSD or Linux with full root control.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cornelius Keck <ckeck(a)texoma.net>
To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>et>, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:17
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet…
Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that here, as I have static
IPs.
Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is cheaper and easier than
dealing with a hoster..
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been
using the name RetroNET as
well. I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was
about to launch a small pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators
running SVR3, with the hope for many more interconnected systems.
*gulp*
So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-)
We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and
have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the
main website isn't up yet.
We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the
#retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org)
That said, maybe we could pool our efforts?
I'd be happy to share the
domain name with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what
I'd like to see.
~sigh~of~relief~
I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet.
As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct
relation to retro computing.
3:07 a.m.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Cornelius Keck wrote:
If one wanted to do this old-school, like with modems
... just wondering, who
still has
- a wire-line phone,
- a modem,
- and hails from where?
Flat rate local toll and long distance is fairly prevalent in the US.
International long distance is a different story. How does that look like
elsewhere, who has a metered land-line?
Well, I got a landline, but it has flat rate local only and no long
distance plan (it's the second-lowest plan for people with disabilities),
so about the only places I could call out are elsewhere in Niagara Falls
and the surrounding towns...not very useful here =p
-uso.
4:13 a.m.
On 08/30/2018 05:42 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Count me in; as a reborn electronics enthusiast (and a
Unix user since
Edition 5) I've been looking for an excuse to buy a Raspberry Pi (as
opposed to the usual articles in the usual magazines), and this sounds
just the ticket!
That's the spirit. :-) Do what you want to do and have fun doing it.
And if subdomains are available then of course
I'll contribute (as if I
wouldn't anyway).
We haven't explicitly talked about sub-domains yet, but I expect that we
will be delegating <client name>.retrocomp.net to members if they want.
We'll happily host it as part of the retrocomp.net zone and make changes
as requested, or delegate the subdomain per standard process. We can
even slave the delegated subdomain back on the main DNS servers so that
you are in complete control while still hosting things if you prefer.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:17 a.m.
On 08/30/2018 07:09 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote:
I'm playing with the idea of hooking up a modem
to my wireline phone.
I'd like to keep an eye on my late mother-in-law's place remotely. Best
I can get out there is DSL, and it ain't snappy, so one idea is to get
two Telebit Trailblazer modems, one here, one out there, dial into the
place, pull imagery via UUCP. Trailies spoof UUCP natively, and they
deal nicely with bad connectivity. One could take that one step further
and bring back a bit of Usenet.
That sounds like an interesting project. I'd personally like to
shoulder surf or read periodic updates, possibly a blog or twitter? ;-)
I don't see how RetroNet can help with that connection. It sounds like
you've already got a good plan in place.
That being said, I do think that you could have a RetroNet … node
(?term?) … at your house and then pass news feeds / email / etc over
your Telebit UUCP extension. — I see no reason why that wouldn't work.
If you want to do such, cool. How can I / we help?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:33 a.m.
On 08/30/2018 07:17 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote:
Same. I've used UUCP over IP for a long time, but
my German peer went
away.
What were you running across UUCP over IP? I'd be willing ~> interested
in providing a connection from my personal server (currently independent
of RetroNet) if you want to play ~> learn. — Feel free to drop me a
line directly / off list if you (or anyone) want to pursue this.
UUCP over modem I'm going to rig in the near
future, after some retail
therapy, like two Telebit Trailblazer (have one already) and a central
office simulator.
I'm curious what you're going to use as a C.O. simulator. I'm likely to
(re)acquire an AT&T / Lucent / Avaya "Partner" phone system that
provides eight (?) station ports, which include analog B1 interfaces
that modems can connect to. It might only support 33.6 kbps, but it
will do the job. :-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:40 a.m.
On 08/30/2018 07:20 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote:
If one wanted to do this old-school, like with modems
... just
wondering, who still has
- a wire-line phone,
- a modem,
- and hails from where?
Flat rate local toll and long distance is fairly prevalent in the US.
International long distance is a different story. How does that look
like elsewhere, who has a metered land-line?
I could see RetroNet pondering an additional service in the future that
is effectively a virtual serial port (more below) that connects to a
virtual modem that can interconnect with other virtual modems as if they
called each other. I think something like this could be made to work
across IP interconnections provided by RetroNet.
This is obviously beyond the original ideas of RetroNet, which we want
to get working first. But if there's sufficient interest in people
being able to ""call each other over a (virtual) modem, then I think we
should put it on the desired features list.
There are a number of options that can create a virtual serial port that
connects across networks. I think we can even connect a physical serial
port (possibly even via RS-232 serial to USB adapters that can be
connected to physical machines).
So if this is something that you're interested in, please let us know.
This might be a good place to ""forward the virtual modem discussion to
the RetroNet mailing list.
TUHS has been very gracious and a lot of people have shown interest.
But we don't want to wear out our welcome. ():-)
To that end, please subscribe to the RetroNet mailing list to continue
discussing details about the virtual modems.
Link - RetroNet mailing list
- http://mailman.chivanet.org/listinfo/retronet
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
5:06 a.m.
On 08/30/2018 07:15 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote:
Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that
here, as I have static
IPs.
I'm not going to tell you not to do so if you want to.
I will say that I have registered "retrocomp.net", as in "Retro
Computing Network".
The person that has registered "retronet.com" (TLD is from memory) has
both expressed interest in participating and offered use of the domain.
So … I think for the moment we are going to continue with retrocomp.net
because that's what we have started with.
That being said, it is early enough in the process that we can still
change domain names if we want to. I would encourage you to subscribe
to the RetroNet mailing list and start a conversation about which domain
name to use.
Link - RetroNet mailing list
- http://mailman.chivanet.org/listinfo/retronet
Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is cheaper
and easier than
dealing with a hoster..
*nod*
I run my personal services on a Linode VPS. They have served me very
well. :-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:24 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet… Virtual is cheap.
Indeed, that's cheap. When I started out back in ... thinking .... '99
with my first own domain, there were not that many offerings for hosting
at the cost for (then) DSL plus static IPs. Had there been offerings
this low back then I might have opted for that.
But, I liked the way to have physical control over my setup, still do,
so there was, is no reason to switch at this time. Given different
circumstances, I might.
William Pechter wrote:
Actually, my virtual machine @Digital Ocean has been
$5.25/month. Can't get static IP on my Fios for that. Domain registration and DNS
via Google Domains is another buck per month...
I run mail, web and DNS for $6.25/month on FreeBSD or Linux with full root control.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cornelius Keck <ckeck(a)texoma.net>
To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>et>, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:17
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet…
Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that here, as I have static
IPs.
Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is cheaper and easier than
dealing with a hoster..
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
> On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
>> Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been using the name RetroNET as
>> well. I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was
>> about to launch a small pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators
>> running SVR3, with the hope for many more interconnected systems.
>
> *gulp*
>
> So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-)
>
> We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and
> have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the
> main website isn't up yet.
>
> We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the
> #retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org)
>
>> That said, maybe we could pool our efforts? I'd be happy to share the
>> domain name with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what
>> I'd like to see.
>
> ~sigh~of~relief~
>
> I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet.
>
> As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
> folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct
> relation to retro computing.
>
>
>
4:24 p.m.
Cool, thx for the pointer with the mailing list!
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 08/30/2018 07:15 PM, Cornelius Keck wrote:
Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that
here, as I have
static IPs.
I'm not going to tell you not to do so if you want to.
I will say that I have registered "retrocomp.net", as in "Retro
Computing Network".
The person that has registered "retronet.com" (TLD is from memory) has
both expressed interest in participating and offered use of the domain.
So … I think for the moment we are going to continue with retrocomp.net
because that's what we have started with.
That being said, it is early enough in the process that we can still
change domain names if we want to. I would encourage you to subscribe
to the RetroNet mailing list and start a conversation about which domain
name to use.
Link - RetroNet mailing list
- http://mailman.chivanet.org/listinfo/retronet
Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is
cheaper and easier than
dealing with a hoster..
*nod*
I run my personal services on a Linode VPS. They have served me very
well. :-)
5:31 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet… Virtual is cheap.
On 08/31/2018 10:24 AM, Cornelius Keck wrote:
But, I liked the way to have physical control over my
setup, still do,
so there was, is no reason to switch at this time. Given different
circumstances, I might.
I've actually seen / discussed some options to combine the static IP
that you get with inexpensive VPSs with the only dynamic nature of some
residential connections.
I'd be happy to talk about details on COFF if people are interested.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
5:36 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet… Virtual is cheap.
One thought about Digital Ocean is they even have a web browser based graphic console so
you get to fix things @ single user yourself as well as run X remotely if needed...
-----Original Message-----
From: Cornelius Keck <ckeck(a)texoma.net>
To: William Pechter <pechter(a)gmail.com>
Cc: ckeck(a)texoma.net, tuhs(a)tuhs.org
Sent: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:24
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet… Virtual is cheap.
Indeed, that's cheap. When I started out back in ... thinking .... '99
with my first own domain, there were not that many offerings for hosting
at the cost for (then) DSL plus static IPs. Had there been offerings
this low back then I might have opted for that.
But, I liked the way to have physical control over my setup, still do,
so there was, is no reason to switch at this time. Given different
circumstances, I might.
William Pechter wrote:
Actually, my virtual machine @Digital Ocean has been
$5.25/month. Can't get static IP on my Fios for that. Domain registration and DNS
via Google Domains is another buck per month...
I run mail, web and DNS for $6.25/month on FreeBSD or Linux with full root control.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cornelius Keck <ckeck(a)texoma.net>
To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net>et>, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:17
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet…
Do I want to reserve retronet.us? Could host that here, as I have static
IPs.
Having static IPs hanging of a FIOS line is cheaper and easier than
dealing with a hoster..
Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
> On 08/29/2018 12:04 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
>> Hmm. I hate to bring this up, but I've been using the name RetroNET as
>> well. I've had the domain retronet.net registered for ages, and was
>> about to launch a small pilot project with a handful of 3B2 emulators
>> running SVR3, with the hope for many more interconnected systems.
>
> *gulp*
>
> So /you're/ the person that had the domain name we originally wanted. ;-)
>
> We actually decided that we liked "Retro Comp(uting) . Net(work)" and
> have registered that name. There is a wiki(…) and forum(…), but the
> main website isn't up yet.
>
> We are about a week into the discussions. Please join us in the
> #retronet group on the Synchronet network. (irc.chivanet.org)
>
>> That said, maybe we could pool our efforts? I'd be happy to share the
>> domain name with this effort, since it's precisely in line with what
>> I'd like to see.
>
> ~sigh~of~relief~
>
> I think we would love to welcome more members into the RetroNet.
>
> As much as anything else, the idea is to build a community of friendly
> folks that want to play / learn / help each other, likely in direct
> relation to retro computing.
>
>
>
11:25 p.m.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Cornelius Keck wrote:
Flat rate local toll and long distance is fairly
prevalent in the US.
International long distance is a different story. How does that look
like elsewhere, who has a metered land-line?
For any Aussie members, I get free local calls on my plan i.e. anywhere in
the "02" call area. I even have a server with genuine serial ports, but
the latter will change if/when I get a Raspberry Pi.
No modem, though, and I need to see if I can get a second "line" on my NBN
fibre (to the premises) connection to accept dial-in, and whether modems
will actually work (it's implemented as VoIP in the router).
(I have tried subscribing to the "retro" list, but nothing heard yet.)
-- Dave
1 Sep
1 Sep
12:40 a.m.
New subject: RetroNet… Virtual is cheap.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018, William Pechter wrote:
One thought about Digital Ocean is they even have a
web browser based
graphic console so you get to fix things @ single user yourself as well
as run X remotely if needed...
I have a Digital Ocean host myself, so that I can probe my firewall from
the outside (and there is a metric shitload of tools that I can use to
attack it; after all, everybody else is); another reason was that I could
smart-host via it, so that I don't have to use the division of Sirius
Cybernetics known as Telstra.
-- Dave
6:52 a.m.
On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Dave Horsfall wrote:
(I have tried subscribing to the "retro"
list, but nothing heard yet.)
Hmmm... Looking at my reject log, I see this:
Date: Aug 31 17:09:49 (w7V79WBG017201)
from=<retronet-bounces(a)mailman.chivanet.org>
relay=[208.45.186.204]
reject=550 5.7.1 <dave(a)horsfall.org>rg>... Fix reverse DNS for 208.45.186.204
Would that be it? I have some vicious spam defences here, and requiring
rDNS (anything will do) is one of them; I could always whitelist the IP if
it won't change, or perhaps chivanet.org if that will be the origin.
-- Dave
4:16 p.m.
On 09/01/2018 12:52 AM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Hmmm... Looking at my reject log, I see this:
Date: Aug 31 17:09:49 (w7V79WBG017201)
from=<retronet-bounces(a)mailman.chivanet.org>
relay=[208.45.186.204]
reject=550 5.7.1 <dave(a)horsfall.org>rg>... Fix reverse DNS for
208.45.186.204
Would that be it?
Yep, that's it.
I have some vicious spam defences here, and requiring
rDNS (anything will
do) is one of them; I could always whitelist the IP if it won't change,
or perhaps chivanet.org if that will be the origin.
I think that JPW was going to email you directly (reply to the message I
sent you).
TL;DR: His T1 upstream won't play ball.
I added an entry to my hosts file and things have been fine for me.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2 Sep
2 Sep
10:45 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:11:17PM -0600, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
But if you want to use
RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then you
should be able to do so.
Err - maybe not.
I recall doing that once or twice on our office LAN at the time,
it was very chatty - as I recall it sucked most of the available b/w.
(Or maybe that was just 'cause it was using broadcast packets)
DF
11:29 p.m.
On 09/02/2018 04:45 PM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
Err - maybe not.
O.o?
I recall doing that once or twice on our office LAN at
the time, it was
very chatty - as I recall it sucked most of the available b/w.
That surprises me.
Though to be fair, I never did it that often and it was always during
times that bandwidth wasn't an issue.
(Or maybe that was just 'cause it was using
broadcast packets)
I don't know.
I will say, functionality is different than feasibility.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3 Sep
3 Sep
1:11 a.m.
That is the first version. It sent out full 1500 byte frames. Later versions had
corrected that. They were padded to all zeros, so they compress quite nicely.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
From: Derek Fawcus
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2018 06:45
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet…
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:11:17PM -0600, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
But if you want to use
RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then you
should be able to do so.
Err - maybe not.
I recall doing that once or twice on our office LAN at the time,
it was very chatty - as I recall it sucked most of the available b/w.
(Or maybe that was just 'cause it was using broadcast packets)
DF
7:02 a.m.
Interestingly -
https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2013/10/25/doom-ipx-revisited/ has a good writeup on
the Doom IPX issue - it was a poor implementation sending mainly empty frames.
https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2014/06/10/announcing-hecnetnt/ shows how adding
compression to a bridge is able to eliminate 80% of the traffic.
Bring this back on topic, perhaps adding optional LZO compression, but enabled by default,
would be a good idea for RetroNet.
--Jeff
On Sep 2, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Derek Fawcus
<dfawcus+lists-tuhs(a)employees.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:11:17PM -0600, Grant
Taylor via TUHS wrote:
But if you want to use RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then
you should be able to do so.
Err - maybe not.
I recall doing that once or twice on our office LAN at the time, it was very chatty - as
I recall it sucked most of the available b/w.
(Or maybe that was just 'cause it was using broadcast packets)
DF 
7:21 a.m.
Wow, that takes me back quite a ways. I think I've still got my UUCP
setup somewhere on a backup. UUCP works great over anything from ssh
over tcpip to 1200 baud half-duplex packet connections.
Fond memories.
On 8/29/18, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:38:20PM -0400, William
Pechter wrote:
Count me in. Do we need to work up a UUCP
mapping project.
Argh, argh! I did a lot of this last year. It's all on Github at
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/
We got as far as recreating this microcosm of Usenet
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/4bsd-uucp/blob/4.3BSD/uucp.png
before it all petered out!
Cheers, Warren
8:24 a.m.
Yes, I’m familiar with that write up…. I wrote it!
And yes, it's why I later grabbed a bunch of compression algorithms and went with
lzss as it compressed well, fast an ld was tiny compared to others...
https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2014/06/06/i-forget-what-i-was-looking-f…
I would highly recommend compressing the frames for sure. On high latency links it sure
helps too.
It's also why cisco had licensed LZS compression for their serial links. And totally
worth looking at.
From: Jeffrey H. Johnson
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2018 15:12
To: Derek Fawcus
Cc: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] RetroNet…
Interestingly -
https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2013/10/25/doom-ipx-revisited/ has a good writeup on
the Doom IPX issue - it was a poor implementation sending mainly empty frames.
https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2014/06/10/announcing-hecnetnt/ shows how adding
compression to a bridge is able to eliminate 80% of the traffic.
Bring this back on topic, perhaps adding optional LZO compression, but enabled by default,
would be a good idea for RetroNet.
--Jeff
On Sep 2, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tuhs(a)employees.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:11:17PM -0600, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
But if you want to use RetroNet to play Doom across IPX with buddies across town, then you
should be able to do so.
Err - maybe not.
I recall doing that once or twice on our office LAN at the time, it was very chatty - as I
recall it sucked most of the available b/w.
(Or maybe that was just 'cause it was using broadcast packets)
DF
4:42 p.m.
On 09/03/2018 01:02 AM, Jeffrey H. Johnson wrote:
Bring this back on topic, perhaps adding optional LZO
compression, but
enabled by default, would be a good idea for RetroNet.
Interesting idea Jeff.
I don't know that any of the Lego bricks that we're currently using
support any form of compression.
We'll have to investigate.
Consider compression to be on the "It would be really nice to have" list.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11:01 p.m.
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ed Carp wrote:
Wow, that takes me back quite a ways. I think
I've still got my UUCP
setup somewhere on a backup. UUCP works great over anything from ssh
over tcpip to 1200 baud half-duplex packet connections.
If you're referring to "Amateur" i.e. "ham radio" packet radio
than yes,
I'm told that it works great i.e. half-duplex -> large data -> short ACK.
Fond memories.
Heh heh - I once ran *raw* Xmodem over packet i.e. not encapsulated in
that protocol-from-hell AX.25 i.e. technically illegal[*]; it worked great
until a packet was lost (the "hidden transmitter" problem) and the various
timeouts concerned (Xmodem vs. the TNCs themselves) went completely
pear-shaped...
[*]
Stuff the legality; isn't Amateur radio all about experimentation? But we
did announce on that frequency that we were about to conduct an
experiment. And whoever designed AX.25 (yes, I have studied it in great
detail) must've been on something at the time... Protocol layers?
What's that?
-- Dave (VK2KFU)
4 Sep
4 Sep
8:52 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:01:47AM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Heh heh - I once ran *raw* Xmodem over packet i.e. not encapsulated in
that protocol-from-hell AX.25 i.e. technically illegal[*];
Why would that be illegal?
Last time I checked (in the UK) we can use any form of modulation or
encoding we want [*], as long as we record/log it, and don't use encryption.
DF
[*] Except spark gap transmitters
10:18 p.m.
On 09/04/2018 02:52 AM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
Last time I checked (in the UK) we can use any form of
modulation or
encoding we want [*], as long as we record/log it, and don't use encryption.
I think similar is the case here in the US too.
The key being "encoding" and decidedly NOT "encryption".
Further, you must make said encodings available to anyone and everyone
that asks, including the F.C.C.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
5 Sep
5 Sep
5:17 a.m.
I just put the TNC into transparent mode and let the Linux boxes talk
to each other via UUCP. I guess I could've used KISS, but it was a
quick-and-dirty hack so I could read email from my laptop in bed :)
On 9/3/18, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ed Carp wrote:
Wow, that takes me back quite a ways. I think
I've still got my UUCP
setup somewhere on a backup. UUCP works great over anything from ssh
over tcpip to 1200 baud half-duplex packet connections.
If you're referring to "Amateur" i.e. "ham radio" packet radio
than yes,
I'm told that it works great i.e. half-duplex -> large data -> short ACK.
Fond memories.
Heh heh - I once ran *raw* Xmodem over packet i.e. not encapsulated in
that protocol-from-hell AX.25 i.e. technically illegal[*]; it worked great
until a packet was lost (the "hidden transmitter" problem) and the various
timeouts concerned (Xmodem vs. the TNCs themselves) went completely
pear-shaped...
[*]
Stuff the legality; isn't Amateur radio all about experimentation? But we
did announce on that frequency that we were about to conduct an
experiment. And whoever designed AX.25 (yes, I have studied it in great
detail) must've been on something at the time... Protocol layers?
What's that?
-- Dave (VK2KFU)
6 Sep
6 Sep
2:11 a.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
I've read that Taylor UUCP fixed a bunch of issues with HDB UUCP -
have you considered using it?
On 8/29/18, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
On 08/29/2018 01:28 PM, Arrigo Triulzi wrote:
Have you considered asking Peter Honeyman if he
wishes to collaborate
in the UUCP project (the “Honey” in HoneyDanBer UUCP)?
I hadn't thought about it.
Please reply to me directly / off list with contact information if you
have it and I'll happily send him an email.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
5:07 a.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On Sep 5, 2018, at 8:11 PM, Ed Carp <erc(a)pobox.com> wrote:
I've read that Taylor UUCP fixed a bunch of
issues with HDB UUCP -
have you considered using it?
Taylor UUCP (no known relationship) is the default on every Linux distribution (including
Cygwin) that I’ve used. Thus it’s the bulk of what I’ve used.
I feel like TUHS is a good place to learn about the differences. I’d be interested in
anything (history, gotchas, pro tips, lore, etc., that people have to offer.
#learningisfun
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:22 p.m.
New subject: RetroNet???
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:12 PM Ed Carp <erc(a)pobox.com> wrote:
I've read that Taylor UUCP fixed a bunch of
issues with HDB UUCP -
have you considered using it?
Hmmm.. the only thing it really fixed was the licensing. HBD was part of
distributed in the 'toolkit' and as part of Svs V. I think it was part of
PWB 3.0, as we shipped it with RTU; but we have have gotten it via the
toolkit license [I'm too lazy to look at Warren's System files to check].
HDB was the huge fix of the original version that went 'wide' with V7 and
BSD. The primary changes were in house directories and the queues were
handled, which had huge performance impact; particularly for large sites
with an heavy UUCPnet load (a.k.a. the 'Usenet'). The other things that
was in HDB was some collected alternate protocols besides Greg Chesson's
original 'g' protocol; although those had all been distributed on the
Usenet as net.noise, so all it really did is become a packaging thing.
There were a number of UUCP clones written in those days, and PC-uucp was
popular for CP/M and later DOS systems that wanted to join the Usenet [Rick
Adams, I think had a packaged version of some of them for his non-UNIX
customers IIRC).
As to why Dave Taylor decided to write another one in thoses, you'ld have
to ask him; but in the end it replaced the V7 one in BSD. But a lot of
effort was made to make sure Taylor UUCP was more than a functional
work-alike. It had admin like HBD and use the same queues etc. What I
do not remember, Mary Ann might, is if Berkeley had been running HDB from
the Toolkit on ucbvax internally, but could not have easily redistribute it
( seem to remember there were). They funny part is that most Academics
had a toolkit license by then becsuse they wanted HDB and ksh as a minimum,
so most were running HDB; but the rules in the toolkit for academics were
different than the original base license (I've forgotten them -- I had left
academia so it did not effect me). But it was around this time the Keith
was start to try to remove code that was knows to have AT&T copyright
issues, when their was an alternative implementation that had BSD style
licenses (which Taylor UUCP, as did Clark's troff as I recall).
BTW Grant, Linux picked up Taylor UUCP after BSD (it was not in the
original distros and I suspect would have crashed the kernel in those days
if the site was as all loaded).
ᐧ
2053
days inactive
2061
days old
68 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
Andreas Hein -
Arrigo Triulzi -
Arthur Krewat -
Clem Cole -
Cornelius Keck -
Dan Cross -
Dave Horsfall -
Derek Fawcus -
Donald ODona -
Ed Carp -
Grant Taylor -
Jeffrey H. Johnson -
jsteve＠superglobalmegacorp.com -
Larry McVoy -
Michael Kjörling -
Ron Young -
Seth Morabito -
Steve Nickolas -
Warren Toomey -
William Pechter