Subj : Installing 32
To   : Minh Van Le
From : Richard Webb
Date : Sat May 24 2008 09:47 pm

Hello Minh,

Minh Van Le wrote in a message to Richard Webb:


MVL> Man you mean you haven't hooked up NetFOSS or Netserial -
MVL> what have you been DOING.

RW> Nope, not on a dial-up internet connection on one line.

MVL> It still would have worked. Heh.

Maybe but I don't have reason to on a dial-up for numerous reasons.

RW> VOlunteers is more the right word, I object to the "hobby"
RW> designation myself. SHall we just say for volunteer
RW> emergency communicators <g>.

MVL> That would be more sensible.

RW> I'll give it some study then, see what happens, but looks
RW> like i'll be running the lnux executables ,g>.

MVL> The problem with the Linux version of Maximus is that it's more
MVL> flakey, less tested and unsupported.

SO I"ve herad, which ws one reason my thinking went toward the 16 or 32 bit
versions.

RW> True enough, but staying with plain text for most displays,
RW> it's about the info, and it's about being able to connect
RW> to it with just about anything. IF all you've got is an old
RW> 1200 baud modem it has a landline.  No slow to load
RW> graphics, no hassles with what plug-ins your browser has.

MVL> You don't need plugins for HTML.

NO you don't for straight html, but part of the reason for doing it this way is
both accessibility for those with the web access etc. and field accessibility
even if all you've got is an old 8088 with a 1200 baud modem <g>. IN the case
of the antique I can still provide such a user with a point setup that will run
and let him automate retrieving the information he wants/needs.

MVL> There's nothing a BBS can't display that can't be done with HTML.

tHe main focus of this system is the mmessages, and some files for retrieval.
Hence the form in which it's displayed is not as important as just getting it
to the end user. INtent is to have different flavors of access for a variety of
users.

otoh the business will have full blown web portal, no bbs at all.  wE'll also
hire that out. wE'll house it physically ourselves but an associate of mine
will be contracted to maintain and update business web site.

MVL> In an emergency I personally would prefer point'n'click interfaces
MVL> when browsing for information instead of telnet.

MVL> Up to you.

NOt as much "browsing" as just retrieve it to your local machine.  Also this
old blind geezer detests point and click and wading through a bunch of
information. An example might be tropical storm bulletins.  LEt the user
retrieve it, print it if he/she chooses, read it from the screen, however. Even
with aforementioned antique he can send it online to grab it while he goes into
the other room to finish fixing his dinner.  HE can also do this on a computer
that somebody else threw away as it's not fast enough.  IF he wants the
satellite pictures and all that, let him buy a modern machine and pay for an
internet connection <g>.

Otoh for the guy with all the connectivity at his fingertips, he can telnet or
use www to get in.

RW> I think option 3 sounds like the way to go here <g>.  Have
RW> one linux box anyway that will be networked but have other
RW> plans for it.

MVL> Just dump everything on one box.

Numerous reasons I don't wish to do that.  tHe linux box will be used at times
with its usb card to  transfer from audio and other devices using flash cards
for such items as voice-overs for clients; audio transcriptions for
dissemination on a radio network for those who aren't comfortable presenting
this material, and at times large archival projects.  THis will happen on the
linux box because of my dislike of anything gui. tHe wife otoh likes her gui a
bit.

Meanwhile, for every day work in my office, notetaking, radio logging and other
chores I'm still rather fond of plain vanilla ms dos. i get around quite well
in its batch language, I like its screen access best of screen access for all
the other operating systems out there I've been acquainted with. Hence we
network the machines and have one trick ponies doing what they do best.

oNe machine will handle router/firewall and all connections among the different
machines.  TOo many jobs to do, and a couple of them are going to be cpu
intensive no matter which os we run.  I also am a bit leery of multiple os
bootups on one machine. i sort of like the kiss principle, i.e. keep it simple
stupid <g>.

Regards,
          Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS       (1:116/901)