Internet Tools (InfoMagic)/Internet Tools.iso/dos_win/winsock/maillist/94-05.Z/94-05/[e-mail]_Fri May 27 13:25:53 1994.msg

Internet Message Format | 1994-05-31 | 24KB

Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA17788; Fri, 27 May 1994 13:25:53 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA19303; Fri, 27 May 1994 13:19:05 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 12:20:58
From: [e-mail] (Eric R Sandeen)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: USA CERL
Sender: ses
References: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SLIP

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael E. Mendis) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Michael E. Mendis)
>Subject: SLIP
>Date: 26 May 1994 03:13:42 GMT

>I have gotten SLIP to work under linux and windows, but the problem I have
 is that when I connect to my school's computer I don't login in as a user.  I
type 'SLIP'.  This main computer allows people to connect to all the different
computer systems in the school, compuer science, physics, engineering, ect...
 So everyone can use SLIP, and it doesn't need to be installed on every
computer.

>So my problem is, most of the software to use slip, besides the telnet doesn't work.
  They all assume I have logged in.  i.e. WinGopher sends the command gopher,
but the main compuer system doesn't undertsand 'gopher'.  It only know rlogin
and telnet.  That's why telnet works.   I am looking for a telnet program,
which allows me to run wingopher, winarchie from within the telnet program.
Or a program which similar to it.

>Thanks
>Mike

I think you're not doing what you think you're doing..  :-)

Sounds like you're at your terminal server prompt - it only knows rlogin and
telnet, and maybe slip as commands.  I'm not sure what you're trying to do -
but here's what SLIP is for:  You get the slip software for your computer at
home.  You use it to dial up your school's mainframe, and you tell the
mainframe "SLIP" (and probably some other things, such as your login...?)  If
all goes well, and you get connected correctly, then your computer is an
extension of the Internet, over the phone lines.  You have your own IP
address, etc.  So - when you have the SLIP connection, you're ready to use
anything that is "winsock" compliant.   (I'm assuming you're using windows,
right?)  NOW you can use Wingopher and the like - they need to be installed on
YOUR machine, at home.  When you typed wingopher before, you were telling the
terminal server to run wingopher, and it has never even heard of "Windows"!

When you say that "SLIP" doesn't need to be installed on everyone's
computer...  Not sure what you mean.  Perhaps you're in a lab with a file
server, and the Winsock compliant programs (like WinGopher) are simply run
off of the file server...

Anyway, a good SLIP package to use is Trumpet Winsock.  It's
shareware, available at ftp.utas.edu.au, in directory
/pub/pc/trumpet/winsock/winsock.zip

(there are other servers which have it, if you know how to use archie, use
that to find a closer ftp server, since the one above is in australia and
somewhat bogged down...)

Good luck!
   -eric
From [e-mail] Fri May 27 00:23:12 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA17806; Fri, 27 May 1994 13:25:54 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA17115; Fri, 27 May 1994 13:00:19 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 00:23:12 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Brooks)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: TurboSoft Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
Sender: ses
References: <2rgem4$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WINSOCK for DOS?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth Kasajian) writes:
|[e-mail] (Marshal Perlman [ARCS]) writes:
|
|>On Thu, 19 May 94 12:28:48, [e-mail] wrote:
|>:     Does anyone know if there is a DOS version of WINSOCK available?
|
|>Winsock is a WINDOWS SOCKET API... There is no such thing as DOSSOCK.
|
|>I suggest you obtain DOS specific TCP/IP stuff such as MINUET, NCSA/CUTCP
|>Telnet, NuPOP etc...
|
|How do you know that Winsock doesn't support DOS programs?  The spec
|clearly talks about a DOS interface to TCP/IP.  It's just not completed
|yet.

Time to put an end to this nonsense. The 'spec' - Windows Sockets 1.1
Specification - says _nothing_ about a DOS 'Winsock' interface. You are
thinking of the Winsock FAQ that gets posted sporadically here, in which there
is a mention of a project of me and my company to create a 'winsock'
environment under DOS. (and for those that have emailed me lately, please be
patient - our email link is in a bad karma state right now! - I _will_ get
back to you!).
    The entire idea behind Windows Sockets, and the reason it has caught
on so well, is that it is a _binary_ interface - you can mix and match
pre-compiled applications and kernels. In the DOS world, every protocol stack
uses a different intyernal interface, so programs, once compiled with a
particular vendor's socket library, would only communicate using that vendor's
protocol kernel. Third-party developers, like us, needed to purchase every
single DOS stack we wanted to be able to work over, and produce empteen
versions of the same program, one for each stack - and they all worked
differently, and the interfaces often needed to be customised for each,
because the socket calls were subtly different, or one supported options
the other didn't, etc.
    Our project was:
    1) to produce DOS libraries that would allow the same source code to
    be compiled under DOS and Windows, using the Windows Sockets spec. as
    the definitive interface manual, including the WSAAsync. calles and
    blocking hook operation.

        This has been done.

    2)    To produce 'shims', and/or release a binary interface spec so
    others can produce the 'shims', to load on top of each different
    stack so they all look the same from the application's viewpoint. Then
    you could run 'DOSSOCK' compiled programs over anybodies stack,
    and hopefully new stack developers would use the published interface
    as their standard interface, obviating the need to a shim.

    Result:
        The libraries work fine - over our stack :-), but there has
    been absolutely no commercial interest in it - everyone wants Windows
    and is or will be halting production of DOS programs, so there has been
    no demand. So at the moment, you could write DOS/Windows code modules,
    but the DOS executables would only work over our stack.

Various efforts have been begun and abandoned to produce a single
common DOS ABI, but all have failed, ultimately because a) they came
4 years too late, and b) none of the major vendors would entertain changing
or adding to their existing stacks and interfaces to support it - each wanted
'their' ABI to become the 'true' ABI, to save work - and I really can't
blame them.

P.S. If you really want to make your Winsock code work in the
DOS environment, order an eval. copy ($0) of our stack or download it from
our BBS ([phone] - 3 x 14.4K lines) and drop me an email message
and I'll send the DOS libraries (MS and Borland, small & large model) to you
to try.

P.P.S. I just write the stuff - I don't do marketing or decisions. All of this
is purely F.Y.I and is only my personal opinions.

--
Paul Brooks              |[e-mail]       |Emerging Standard:
TurboSoft Pty Ltd        |[e-mail]|  one that has not yet
579 Harris St., Ultimo   |                         |  been superseded.
Sydney Australia 2007    |ph: [phone]       |
From [e-mail] Fri May 27 14:25:53 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA06754; Fri, 27 May 1994 14:25:53 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA21598; Fri, 27 May 1994 14:12:08 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 14:48:45
From: [e-mail] (Kellilynn)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: NB*Net
Sender: ses
References: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help : Winsock login.cmd for NB tel's NB NET

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Christopher) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Rick Christopher)
>Subject: Help : Winsock login.cmd for NB tel's NB NET
>Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 17:15:17 GMT

>Can someone post or e-mail me the Winsock login.cmd script that works for
>NBtel NB Net service.  I looked at the samples included with winsock but I'm
>having a hard time configuring the script to work with NBnet.

I tried to email you at this address, but it bounced back :(
Do you have an account on NBnet?
If so, you can always call the 800 number, or possibly post to our nbnet
groups where you can get help dealing with things concerning NBnet and
setups/config files/scripts..etc
Or on the NBnet gopher under NBnet/Internet information there's an FAQ (from
my newsgroup) that has a good login.cmd for winsock

If you don't have an account with NBnet, the login scripts aren't going to do
you any good.
If you are on NBnet, email me and I can send you a copy of the FAQ


Kellilynn


************************************************************
Peachnut Internet Training Services  bus/fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
http://www.csi.nb.ca/peachnut/peachnut.html
We help you get the most from your internet connection.
************************************************************
From [e-mail] Fri May 27 15:42:00 1994
Received: from zcias1.ziff.com by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA02901; Fri, 27 May 1994 15:44:19 -0400
Received: from zijm.zis.ziff.com by zcias1.ziff.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6906)
 id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 27 May 1994 15:43:45 EDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 15:42:00 +0000
From: Jeff Macdonald <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WINSOCK for DOS?
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Envelope-To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.11a)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal

Food for thought:

Borland is releasing a royality free DOS extender (called PowerPak)
that will be able to use Windows DLLs as long as the DLLs don't
contain any Windows GDI calls.

Wouldn't that allow developers to use the Windows winsock.dll in DOS
programs?

Comments?

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth Kasajian) writes:
> |[e-mail] (Marshal Perlman [ARCS]) writes:
> |
> |>On Thu, 19 May 94 12:28:48, [e-mail] wrote:
> |>:     Does anyone know if there is a DOS version of WINSOCK available?
> |
> |>Winsock is a WINDOWS SOCKET API... There is no such thing as DOSSOCK.
> |
> |>I suggest you obtain DOS specific TCP/IP stuff such as MINUET, NCSA/CUTCP
> |>Telnet, NuPOP etc...
> |
> |How do you know that Winsock doesn't support DOS programs?  The spec
> |clearly talks about a DOS interface to TCP/IP.  It's just not completed
> |yet.
>
> Time to put an end to this nonsense. The 'spec' - Windows Sockets 1.1
> Specification - says _nothing_ about a DOS 'Winsock' interface. You are
> thinking of the Winsock FAQ that gets posted sporadically here, in which there
> is a mention of a project of me and my company to create a 'winsock'
> environment under DOS. (and for those that have emailed me lately, please be
> patient - our email link is in a bad karma state right now! - I _will_ get
> back to you!).
>     The entire idea behind Windows Sockets, and the reason it has caught
> on so well, is that it is a _binary_ interface - you can mix and match
> pre-compiled applications and kernels. In the DOS world, every protocol stack
> uses a different intyernal interface, so programs, once compiled with a
> particular vendor's socket library, would only communicate using that vendor's
> protocol kernel. Third-party developers, like us, needed to purchase every
> single DOS stack we wanted to be able to work over, and produce empteen
> versions of the same program, one for each stack - and they all worked
> differently, and the interfaces often needed to be customised for each,
> because the socket calls were subtly different, or one supported options
> the other didn't, etc.
>     Our project was:
>     1) to produce DOS libraries that would allow the same source code to
>     be compiled under DOS and Windows, using the Windows Sockets spec. as
>     the definitive interface manual, including the WSAAsync. calles and
>     blocking hook operation.
>
>         This has been done.
>
>     2)    To produce 'shims', and/or release a binary interface spec so
>     others can produce the 'shims', to load on top of each different
>     stack so they all look the same from the application's viewpoint. Then
>     you could run 'DOSSOCK' compiled programs over anybodies stack,
>     and hopefully new stack developers would use the published interface
>     as their standard interface, obviating the need to a shim.
>
>     Result:
>         The libraries work fine - over our stack :-), but there has
>     been absolutely no commercial interest in it - everyone wants Windows
>     and is or will be halting production of DOS programs, so there has been
>     no demand. So at the moment, you could write DOS/Windows code modules,
>     but the DOS executables would only work over our stack.
>
> Various efforts have been begun and abandoned to produce a single
> common DOS ABI, but all have failed, ultimately because a) they came
> 4 years too late, and b) none of the major vendors would entertain changing
> or adding to their existing stacks and interfaces to support it - each wanted
> 'their' ABI to become the 'true' ABI, to save work - and I really can't
> blame them.
>
> P.S. If you really want to make your Winsock code work in the
> DOS environment, order an eval. copy ($0) of our stack or download it from
> our BBS ([phone] - 3 x 14.4K lines) and drop me an email message
> and I'll send the DOS libraries (MS and Borland, small & large model) to you
> to try.
>
> P.P.S. I just write the stuff - I don't do marketing or decisions. All of this
> is purely F.Y.I and is only my personal opinions.
>
> --
> Paul Brooks              |[e-mail]       |Emerging Standard:
> TurboSoft Pty Ltd        |[e-mail]|  one that has not yet
> 579 Harris St., Ultimo   |                         |  been superseded.
> Sydney Australia 2007    |ph: [phone]       |
>



Jeff Macdonald
10 Presidents Landing
Medford, MA
617-393-3256

[e-mail]
From [e-mail] Fri May 27 19:14:49 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA06713; Fri, 27 May 1994 15:55:50 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA17453; Fri, 27 May 1994 15:30:52 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 19:14:49 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Nikki Locke)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Trumphurst Ltd.
Sender: ses
References: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TRUMPET:SLIP:COM4:...Help!!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robin Greenhagen) writes:
> I am having a heck of a time getting Trumpet to SLIP over my internal USR
> v.32.bis modem which is set up on COM4.
>
> When dialing our terminal server, I get the CONNECT 14400/ARQ just fine, but
> instead of the next line being "Username:"  I get a line of garbage the looks
> like  and some other weird characters.

You have your baud rate set wrong.

--
Nikki Locke,Trumphurst Ltd.(PC & Unix consultancy) [e-mail]
trmphrst.demon.co.uk is NOT affiliated with ANY other sites at demon.co.uk.
From [e-mail] Fri May 27 19:57:46 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA16804; Fri, 27 May 1994 16:25:53 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA19264; Fri, 27 May 1994 16:01:35 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 19:57:46 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Alan Thew)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Liverpool
Sender: ses
Subject: WinVn 91.2 winsock error

I get the following error from Trumpet Winsock 1.0 beta #6

    Error: WSAENOTSOCK (0) by WINVN

My ini file is correct and no amount of changing things seems to work
the gwinsock.dll is in place and mentioned correctly in the ini file.
Version 90.6 of WinVn is fine (as you can see :-))

Any ideas anyone?

Thanks

Alan Thew
From [e-mail] Tue May 27 20:51:50 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA25459; Fri, 27 May 1994 16:55:54 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA22271; Fri, 27 May 1994 16:54:11 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: 27 May 94 20:51:50 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bing Chow)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Sender: ses
Subject: Looking for FAQ for this group

Can someone tell me where I can get a copy of the FAQ for this group?


--
$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*&$&#*-=*
Bing Chow <[e-mail]>         *
Telephone: [phone]               *    Smile! It looks good on you.
The University of BC, Vacouver, Canada  *
From [e-mail] Fri May 27 12:24:32 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA05324; Fri, 27 May 1994 17:25:54 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA21009; Fri, 27 May 1994 17:01:56 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 16:24:32 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Matt Davidson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida
Sender: ses
Subject: WINMM16.DLL in Mosaic 2.0a4?

After I installed the Win32s, Aldus Pagemaker gave me a GPF every time I went
to print.  The GPF was in "WINMM16.DLL."  I renamed the file and now PM works
fine.  But whenever I start Mosaic I get a file not found error looking for
WINMM16.  Strangely, though, I just click "OK" and Mosaic works fine!  What is
this DLL that creates such errors but seems to be totally unnecessary?

--Matt D.
From [e-mail] Tue May 27 15:46:57 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA14992; Fri, 27 May 1994 17:55:54 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA20594; Fri, 27 May 1994 17:50:55 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: 27 May 1994 18:46:57 -0300
From: [e-mail] (Rick Ballard)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network
Sender: ses
References: <2s2rit$[e-mail]>, <2s2t5c$[e-mail]>, <jmason.770038243@destructor>
Subject: Re: Winsock reliability (was Re: Trumpet vs. Chameleon)


[e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:

>I have, and strongly DISrecommend Trumpet.  I had lots of very serious
>problems with it in the stability and performance area that I do not
>have with Chameleon.

I have been running Trumpet Winsock (now at 1.0 rev A) for a long time, over
a SLIP connection. I run mosaic, hgopher, eudora, wsftp, and trumpet
newsreader. I do not have GPFs. I find Trumpet Winsock to be problem free. I
highly recommend Trumpet Winsock over a slip connection. I am running with a
USR Sportster 14400, the Cyberdrv comm driver and a 16550 uart.

Maybe you could provide details of your stability and performance problems. I
admit the whole setup takes a lot of tuning and trial and error to get running
properly, but it can be set up to yield extremely reliable communications.
--
__________________________________________________     _______________
|                      |                         |    /  _____________O
| Rick Ballard         | [e-mail] |   /  /|___________
| Halifax, Nova Scotia | 429-8850                |  /  /_/___________O
| Canada               |                         | /________________
|______________________|_________________________| |________________O
From [e-mail] Tue May 27 22:00:55 1994
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu by SunSITE.Unc.EDU (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.07) with SMTP
          id AA23911; Fri, 27 May 1994 18:25:53 -0400
Received: by bigblue.oit.unc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA10526; Fri, 27 May 1994 18:14:59 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by bigblue with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
To: [e-mail]
Date: 27 May 1994 22:00:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (John Lellis)
Message-Id: <2s5qin$[e-mail]>
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   [phone]
Sender: ses
References: <[e-mail]>, <2rvmh7$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WinQvt/Net 3.97 and MS TCP/IP Daytona

Doug Jones ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <2rvmh7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Lellis) writes:

: >For what it's worth, WinQVT/Net v3.97 runs fine here under WFWG with NETBUI and
: >Daytona TCP/IP - I just logged in and out of the QVT FTP server five times from
: >another node without any trouble.  Sounds like a synergism with the Novell ODI
: >drivers - let the finger-pointing begin!
:
: BUT, as I said I'm not running Novell,i.e. no ODI on my machine. Strange?
: Wonder what the quirks is? I'm just like yours WFWG, NetBEUI, MS-TCP/IP-32!
: Doug
: [e-mail]

I'm using the SMC EtherCard PLUS Elite16T (WD8013) card.  Is that a difference?

--

John Lellis ([e-mail])

--
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.