Subj : Re: Impulse Linux versus Impulse DOS.
To : mark lewis
From : joseph larsen
Date : Fri Mar 04 2016 02:02 am
|01 ��۲������ �� �|CR�� quoting |09mark lewis |01on |0903/03/16 |07
ml> how is it not y2k compatible? does it emit or expect three digits for
ml> two digit years?
It doesn't display the year in the traditional sense. Ie, "January 1st 2016",
it displays "Jan 1 1800". Also, I have to set the date to a pre-2000 date in
order for the BBS software to start, otherwise it complains.
"
Please set the date & time, it is required for operation.
"
ml> so this is not a side by side comparison of the exact same message in
ml> the exact same message base by two different flavors of the software???
Correct. The DOS version uses an older version of the code base. The version
i'm using is the latest code available. As far as the messages go, I copied
the actual message files over to the DOS port. Like you said, there must be a
problem, because the count of messages is off by 1. In that certain base
which I posted a screenshot of. I _tried_ copying over the mail?.pas files
over to the Linux side, and compiled it, and i'm still having the same
problems with garbled screens. I'm not so sure the problem lies in the
mail?.pas files. _Maybe_ it's "records.pas"?? I have no idea. But, I hope I
solve this problem soon. :(
ml> the point is that if the exact same message in the exact same message
ml> base is depicted one way in one flavor of the software, it should be
ml> depicted pretty much the same by another flavor of the software... if
ml> you are using two different copies of the messages in two different
ml> versions of the message bases then this is going to be really tough to
ml> diagnose... you really should have one copy of the message in one
ml> message base that is read by both flavors of the software... that way
ml> the differences between them can be easier to see...
Nod. Like I said I copied the (same) messages over to the DOS version. So,
both "flavors" of the software are rendering the messages differently. Again,
i'm not so sure the problem lies in the message base code.
ml> you're welcome but i'm not sure that i'm really being all that much help
ml> in this case :(
It's much appreciated. I'm sure we'll eventually figure this out.
