e launched a bbs on a commodore 64. It is in a trial period. It works with
the soft bbs image 64 rs232 adapter at 2400bps.
support petscii graphics and ansii
the telnet address is lu8fjh-c64.ddns.net:6400
In test.
Greetings to all

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Linux/32)
* Origin: LU8FJH BBS (21:1/209)

e launched a bbs on a commodore 64. It is in a trial period. It works
with
the soft bbs image 64 rs232 adapter at 2400bps.
support petscii graphics and ansii
the telnet address is lu8fjh-c64.ddns.net:6400
In test.
Greetings to all

Oooh! Tell us more! What kind of hardware are you using?


--- NiKom v2.5.0
* Origin: Delta City (deltacity.se, Vallentuna, Sweden) (21:2/130.0)

On 29 Oct 2020 at 11:44a, lu8fjh pondered and said...

e launched a bbs on a commodore 64. It is in a trial period. It works
with the soft bbs image 64 rs232 adapter at 2400bps.
support petscii graphics and ansii
the telnet address is lu8fjh-c64.ddns.net:6400

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow get echomail supported on a C64/C128 type of BBS. I mean, now it is possible to hook wifi to systems like that. lol. So, after seeing things like that, you start to think almost anything is possible with just the right mix of skill and imagination!

.:- Paradigms Shifting -:.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 31 Mar 2021, Paradigms Shifting said the following...

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow get echomail supported on a C64/C128 type of BBS. I mean, now it is possible to hook wifi to systems like that. lol. So, after seeing things like that, you start to think almost anything is possible with just the right mix of skill and imagination!

It would be possible, but would be almost impossible to keep the board up for callers. I run an Image BBS v3.0 (I was one of the programmers of it), the networking that is part of it has echo's and netmail. Only problem is if it were to get the amount of posts say from fsxNet in one sitting it would be there processing them for hours. Back in the day when I ran the NISSA
Network, I had a board go down and there was a break in the network so the backup on both ends reached megabytes of messages, my board was down for 8 hours processing about 100 messages (I average over 400 messages a day with Mystic and it processes them in seconds). The reason? 1mhz. NOW if you were
to run in emulation that time would be cut down by 20% because you could run
a Emulated 20mhz Super CPU as I currently run on my Image board. You would still be talking 6 hours processing time on a packet like that. If you were
to run it on a Ultimate 64 at 40mhz and the new drive access it would
probably take about 2 hours. The Commodore was/is a great computer, Hell I am still programming for it. But running Fido or fsxNet wouldn't be a wise choice.. LOL

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Wrong Number Family Of BBS' - Wrong Number ][ (21:4/131)

On 31 Mar 2021 at 06:37p, Bucko pondered and said...

On 31 Mar 2021, Paradigms Shifting said the following...

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow get echomail supported on C64/C128 type of BBS. I mean, now it is possible to hook wifi to syst like that. lol. So, after seeing things like that, you start to think almost anything is possible with just the right mix of skill and imagination!

It would be possible, but would be almost impossible to keep the board
up for callers. I run an Image BBS v3.0 (I was one of the programmers of it), the networking that is part of it has echo's and netmail. Only problem is if it were to get the amount of posts say from fsxNet in one sitting it would be there processing them for hours. Back in the day
when I ran the NISSA Network, I had a board go down and there was a
break in the network so the backup on both ends reached megabytes of messages, my board was down for 8 hours processing about 100 messages (I average over 400 messages a day with Mystic and it processes them in seconds). The reason? 1mhz. NOW if you were to run in emulation that
time would be cut down by 20% because you could run a Emulated 20mhz
Super CPU as I currently run on my Image board. You would still be
talking 6 hours processing time on a packet like that. If you were to
run it on a Ultimate 64 at 40mhz and the new drive access it would probably take about 2 hours. The Commodore was/is a great computer, Hell
I am still programming for it. But running Fido or fsxNet wouldn't be a wise choice.. LOL

There are some ways you could "cheat" but I guess it would really depend upon just how much of a "purist" one desired to be about the whole thing.

For example -- before the wifi hardware mod (i wonder if someone made
anything similar using an RJ45 connection as opposed to wifi), I recall that someone had made a setup where you could wire a C64/C128 computer into a Windows machine, and the Windows machine had a telnet daemon which then
routed the connection to a COM port, which then tossed it at the C64/C128 making it think that it was receiving a "real phone call".

Depending on what type of Commodore enthusiast one was, it could be said that relying on another computer using another operating system is "cheating" and therefore "does not really count" -- or -- one might say that because it is hardware plugged into hardware, it is "not cheating" because you're simply plugging your C64/C128 into another piece of hardware, and even back in the day, there were all sorts of expansion hardware and things you could "plug
in" to a C64, and so as long as it is just hardware talking to each other,
then its not cheating.

So similarly -- if you could make something to where the message areas were actually stored on a hard drive on another computer running a different operating system, then that computer could handle all of the echomail stuff, with no downtime and without waiting for hell to freeze over.

If one wanted to be more purist about it, then a custom piece of expansion hardware could be designed that contained a solid state drive, memory, cpu and some firmware written specifically to be able to send / recv echomail, store the BBS message base files and do all of the tossing and such. Then it would
be similar to the wifi hardware, but created for a different task -- and the configuration could be accessed from the C64 computer monitor itself, just as the wifi hardware config can be accessed.

So, if someone wanted to go through the trouble -- there are two possible
ways.

.:- Paradigms Shifting -:.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 01 Apr 2021, Paradigms Shifting said the following...

There are some ways you could "cheat" but I guess it would really depend upon just how much of a "purist" one desired to be about the whole thing.

For example -- before the wifi hardware mod (i wonder if someone made anything similar using an RJ45 connection as opposed to wifi), I recall that someone had made a setup where you could wire a C64/C128 computer into a Windows machine, and the Windows machine had a telnet daemon
which then routed the connection to a COM port, which then tossed it at the C64/C128 making it think that it was receiving a "real phone call".

That exact setup is being used by many today, in fact I ran 2 Commodore BBS' that way for over a year. You would use a Swiftlink or RS232 Interface to
hook up to the com port on a PC and use BBS Server or TCPSER to connect the calls.. It works great..

Depending on what type of Commodore enthusiast one was, it could be said that relying on another computer using another operating system is "cheating" and therefore "does not really count" -- or -- one might say that because it is hardware plugged into hardware, it is "not cheating" because you're simply plugging your C64/C128 into another piece of hardware, and even back in the day, there were all sorts of expansion hardware and things you could "plug in" to a C64, and so as long as it
is just hardware talking to each other, then its not cheating.

So similarly -- if you could make something to where the message areas were actually stored on a hard drive on another computer running a different operating system, then that computer could handle all of the echomail stuff, with no downtime and without waiting for hell to freeze over.

I am sure you could have the processing done on the PC Side, BUT there are other things that need to be done such as getting those messages from the PC
to the C64, one could just do a copy, but then they would not be seen by the C64 BBS program, so they would need to be processed on the C64 side. Either
way there is down time for processing the messages.

If one wanted to be more purist about it, then a custom piece of
expansion hardware could be designed that contained a solid state drive, memory, cpu and some firmware written specifically to be able to send / recv echomail, store the BBS message base files and do all of the
tossing and such. Then it would be similar to the wifi hardware, but created for a different task -- and the configuration could be accessed from the C64 computer monitor itself, just as the wifi hardware config
can be accessed.

The only issue there is where does the User log on? The only way that would work on a C64 is if there was at least 2 lines one for incoming calls and one outgoing so you could Telnet out to the custom hardware. This can be done,
you could use a Swiftlink to receive calls and a rs232 interface to dial out
to the PC with, in both cases you would need 2 com ports on the PC one to accept incoming, and one to go outbound to the C64 hardware. The Ultimate 64
is the closest thing to that ever being able to happen. IT has WiFi built in, it has Swiftlink Capabilities, and it has both a cartridge port and a
available user port.

So, if someone wanted to go through the trouble -- there are two possible ways.

.:- Paradigms Shifting -:.

Absolutely possible ways but going to happen? I highly doubt it as the C64
has only so much memory and expansion room.. I love the 64 I used one from
1985 through 1996 then got back into them in 2018 to present time, but the
only way anything like this could or would happen is if someone wants to
spend the time to write the software and create the hardware. Highly unlikely though.. :(

Al

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Wrong Number Family Of BBS' - Wrong Number ][ (21:4/131)

That exact setup is being used by many today, in fact I ran 2 Commodore BBS' that way for over a year. You would use a Swiftlink or RS232 Interface to hook up to the com port on a PC and use BBS Server
or TCPSER to connect the calls.. It works great..

Depending on what type of Commodore enthusiast one was, it could be

said

that relying on another computer using another operating system is

If you were going to run with that line of thinking you wouldn't connect it to the internet, thats the ultimate reliance on other operating systems and pooty power.

There used to be some way to network C64s. Only saw it once, at the end of my last year at a particular school they madly installed a lab of some 20 x 64s with 2 x 1541 drives and they were all talking to those poor overworked drives. I don't know the detail, presumably it was some kind of serial arrangement. So you could in theory share the processing load among more than one c64.

Spec


*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
--- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
* Origin: Scrawled in haste at The Lower Planes (21:3/101)

On 03 Apr 2021, Spectre said the following...

If you were going to run with that line of thinking you wouldn't connect it to the internet, thats the ultimate reliance on other operating
systems and pooty power.

There used to be some way to network C64s. Only saw it once, at the end of my last year at a particular school they madly installed a lab of
some 20 x 64s with 2 x 1541 drives and they were all talking to those
poor overworked drives. I don't know the detail, presumably it was
some kind of serial arrangement. So you could in theory share the processing load among more than one c64.

Spec

There are network interfaces available for the C64 or at least there was. If
I were in that schools shoes, I would have hooked up a 20 meg Lt Kernal with
a couple of Muxers and connected all of the computers that way. IT would have been much faster and had much more room.. Technically, you could probably run
a multiline C64 BBS this way also today. I am pretty sure I think C*Base supports it, we didn't add it into Image because to be honest we were more worried about trashing partitions on the LTK if a file was written to at the same time by both computers.. I currently have 2 seperate muxed systems
running in emulation on my test bed and my Network HUB machine. They run
pretty well also..

Al

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Wrong Number Family Of BBS' - Wrong Number ][ (21:4/131)

Spectre wrote to Bucko <=-

There used to be some way to network C64s. Only saw it once, at the
end of my last year at a particular school they madly installed a lab
of some 20 x 64s with 2 x 1541 drives and they were all talking to
those poor overworked drives. I don't know the detail, presumably it
was some kind of serial arrangement. So you could in theory share the processing load among more than one c64.

I remember that the 8050s could connect to two C-64s, we used those in our computer lab. Maybe, if you could connect them all together, they could
share the same drives?


... Abandon desire
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)

On 04/03/2021 9:46 am poindexter FORTRAN said...

I remember that the 8050s could connect to two C-64s, we used those in our computer lab. Maybe, if you could connect them all together, they could share the same drives?

I never used an 8050, Pet drives I only used the SFD1001's. From what I understand though they were good drives. Especially the 8250 which was something I wanted bad back in the late 80's but could never find one, so I spent the grand on the Lt Kernal!

Al


--- ENiGMA 1/2 v0.0.12-beta (linux; x64; 12.20.1)
* Origin: The Wrong Number Family Of BBS' - Bucko's Den II (21:4/131.1)

I remember that the 8050s could connect to two C-64s, we used those
in our computer lab. Maybe, if you could connect them all together,
they could share the same drives?

Shrug, I dunno, not really being a C64 guy. But it sounds reminiscent of the CORVUS HD system for the Apple II/PC amongst others... was basically a 20 or 40 Mb MFM drive with interface cards. Wasn't quite so much network as resource sharing.

Spec


--- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
* Origin: (21:3/101)

I never used an 8050, Pet drives I only used the SFD1001's. From what I understand though they were good drives. Especially the 8250 which was something I wanted bad back in the late 80's but could never find one,
so I spent the grand on the Lt Kernal!

Memories, ran my Image 1.2 BBS on at first a couple of SFD1001's and a 1541. Then found a deal for a LT Kernal for $200. It wasn't in it's original case and
the guy I bought it from didn't tell me I had to have the case fan plugged in. Toasted the 10 meg drive so I got a 20 meg for $249 and ran it till I switched to a PC and ran TAG. Good times for sure. The only sad thing was there was guy in Chicago area who said he took over Image development and wanted to buy my LT
Kernal and never paid me for it after I sent it to him.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/02/12 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Communication Connection (21:1/192)

On 04 Apr 2021, Sparky said the following...

Memories, ran my Image 1.2 BBS on at first a couple of SFD1001's and a 1541. Then found a deal for a LT Kernal for $200. It wasn't in it's original case and

the guy I bought it from didn't tell me I had to have the case fan
plugged in. Toasted the 10 meg drive so I got a 20 meg for $249 and ran
it till I switched to a PC and ran TAG. Good times for sure. The only
sad thing was there was guy in Chicago area who said he took over Image development and wanted to buy my LT

Kernal and never paid me for it after I sent it to him.

That's a great price for a LTK back in the day.. THey are going for $400 now new! I know the feeling, I took down my 1.2 when I was supposed to take over the programming of Image 2.0 in 1992, it didn't materialize so I pulled out.
I used to run NISSA back in the day, guess I do now too?!? Jeeez. There was no-on in Chicago who was going to take over development, I hate to say that, but it was either going to be me and Fred Dart or it was never going to happen.. Eventually, Fred, myself, Jack Followay, and Larry Gartin took over development in late 95 early 96 and like you I burnt up both my 85 meg HD and my 20 meg HD (Just recently tossed the 20 meg in the garbage), so I gave it up.. Larry Hedman who took what I had of backups of 2.0 in 2015 and over the next 3 years completed it and released it to the public, we then took a
unknown copy of 2.0 which was completely renumbered from the ground up and finished it off and released that in December as 3.0.. Runs like a champ and with todays emulation this thing rivals a lot of PC boards! Anyways, I am rambling...

Al

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Wrong Number Family Of BBS' - Wrong Number ][ (21:4/131)