PCBoard 15.3 source v0.014

[Trifle Menot]

Compiles and works. Archive includes compiler and library for building.

v0.014:

> Fix giveup.c to release timeslices on WINXP, and remove its code
> segment self modification mess, replacing that sorry code with a
> function pointer that allows a debugger to work.
>
> Added ppl directory to main\obj, needed for building pplc.
>
> As previously mentioned in change 009, I expected to abandon the
> CDC build system in favor of my new modular build system. Since
> then, however, I wrote batch files that backport patches from my
> new build system to the CDC build system. Using the two systems
> in parallel is good for testing, I can verify that the new build
> system does not create problems. And it's still possible to use
> the CDC build system for releasing fixes, providing users with a
> format already familiar to them.


http://www.4shared.com/zip/uy-VvYWyce/PCBoard_153_source_code_v0014.html

ed2k://|file|PCBoard%2015.3%20source%20code%20v0.014.zip|27066143|2C8A300076A3E9377AE0FC49F00F4B85|h=WFJN5IBGWL3UR3HY5EWUYG6U7LOHPC6B|/

[corey blake]

hmm, all I get is a blank page from the link.

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:41:06 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> http://www.4shared.com/zip/uy-VvYWyce/PCBoard_153_source_code_v0014.html

>> ed2k://|file|PCBoard%2015.3%20source%20code%20v0.014.zip|27066143|2C8A300076A3E9377AE0FC49F00F4B85|h=WFJN5IBGWL3UR3HY5EWUYG6U7LOHPC6B|/

> hmm, all I get is a blank page from the link.

If you mean the 4shared link, it works here. I downloaded it earlier, to
make sure. Something is wrong at your end, or somewhere between your end
and them.

Try again later.

[corey blake]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:

got it. just a 6 minutes wait for the page to come up.
also, running it in dosbox 074 I am now getting Network Delay.
twice before it starts. and I don't have networking on in it.

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:12:28 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

> also, running it in dosbox 074 I am now getting Network Delay.
> twice before it starts. and I don't have networking on in it.

At the DOSBox website, the networking capability looks interesting, IPX,
emulated ne2000, hmmmm ... could be fun to toy with. Someday maybe.

[corey blake]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:

I like it for the modem emulation too.
fixed the network delay so it is more tolible.
cant do it in the pcbsetup, it only allows 20 to 99 seconds.
but in pcboard.dat. line 92 can be set to 0
and pcb will start up in a few seconds.

[Trifle Menot]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I like it for the modem emulation too.

I had not used DOSBox in a long time, but now, when I build PCBoard on
DOSBox, lib\build.bat fails on the REN command with a wildcard (*). I
could change the batch file for DOSBox, but why bother, since it works
on real DOS.

Is that how you make it work?

>fixed the network delay so it is more tolible.
>cant do it in the pcbsetup, it only allows 20 to 99 seconds.
>but in pcboard.dat. line 92 can be set to 0
>and pcb will start up in a few seconds.

"Network Timeout on Errors (20-99 secs)"

Is for file share locking, not startup delay. It should never be set to
0, that's why they enforce a minimum of 20. Must be some other cause of
your start up delay. I don't have any start up delay here.

[Trifle Menot]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I like it for the modem emulation too.

Without share.exe, or Windows 3.11 vshare.386, you cannot run multinode
PCBoard.

And DOSBox does not support share.exe.

Fail.

[corey blake]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:

yep, I had to make a batch file to do that change.
so network delay is file locking, weird, I am not running it puvlicly yet so I will make a note to set it back after I setup my dos machine. found msdos 7.1 pretty nice.

[corey blake]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:

wierd. I just type share and I get no error.
hmm, then why am I still getting network delay messages.

[Trifle Menot]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:55:02 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

> wierd. I just type share and I get no error.

Illegal command: share

is what I get.

I hear you can get share working in DOSBox, but you have to install dos
6.22 inside DOSBox, to a disk image, and then boot from that. Then you
can load share.

But that way, can't mount host directories as drives. You're limited to
whatever you install onto your disk image. I guess there is some way to
copy more software onto the disk image, after you install DOS. May be a
hassle though.

> why am I still getting network delay messages.

No idea. Something about your setup different from mine.

What share.exe are you loading? It's not included with DOSBox. Where
is it coming from? Your setup sounds weird, no offense.

[Trifle Menot]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:53:41 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

> found msdos 7.1 pretty nice.

Yep, provides FAT32 partitions. Not sure how it helps with multinode
operation though. Do you plan to run only 1 node?

[corey blake]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:

hmm, I think I have the msdos 7.1 share. I forget.
the pcboard is a dir called pcb. which mounts the whole sub dir as
c: then the bbs in in bbs and all batch files are setup to act like it's all off c: drive. looking for a small sata drive to finish my bbs machine. got a dell OptiPlex from a pawnshop for 20.00
just needs hard drive.

[Trifle Menot]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:53:41 -0700 (PDT), corey blake
<aine...@gmail.com> wrote:

> found msdos 7.1 pretty nice

Hmmm, the PCBoard "who" command does not work on dos 7.1. So it's not
100% compatible with dos 6.22.

Not sure I want to chase that bug.

I have Novell Client32 working with my tcp fossil driver, so I can use
IPX and a Novell server (or FPNW clone) to store shared files. I won't
need big disks on the client side; dos 6.22 will be good enough.

[corey blake]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:

hmm, works under dosbox 072 but not under 074 here
who under 072 with me logged in shows fine.
but the list is blank under 074

[Efudd]

Trifle,

This last 0014 references a new build system. Any progress there?

-e

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 6:24:06 PM UTC-4, Trifle Menot wrote:
> Compiles and works. Archive includes compiler and library for building.
>
> v0.014:
>
> > Fix giveup.c to release timeslices on WINXP, and remove its code
> > segment self modification mess, replacing that sorry code with a
> > function pointer that allows a debugger to work.
> >
> > Added ppl directory to main\obj, needed for building pplc.
> >
> > As previously mentioned in change 009, I expected to abandon the
> > CDC build system in favor of my new modular build system. Since
> > then, however, I wrote batch files that backport patches from my
> > new build system to the CDC build system. Using the two systems
> > in parallel is good for testing, I can verify that the new build
> > system does not create problems. And it's still possible to use
> > the CDC build system for releasing fixes, providing users with a
> > format already familiar to them.

*snip*

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Efudd <jason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>This last 0014 references a new build system. Any progress there?

I have it building lib and main, but not pplc. It makes testing and
debugging easier, that's why I use it. When I'm done, I backport the
fixes to the old CDC build system, and release that.

I don't have any plans to do away with the old build system. Using both
old and new is a good cross check to make sure I didn't miss anything or
break anything with the new build system.

I'm too lazy to package it up right now. And it won't help much unless
you're into serious debugging and testing of lib and/or main.

One problem I'm interested in, is making the fossil code more efficient,
and less of a CPU hog. But I've not worked on it lately, and there's no
popular demand ...

[Efudd]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 2:39:34 AM UTC-5, Trifle Menot wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Efudd <someone>

I'm assuming this died at this point? I'd like to get the most current work you have, if possible....

[corey blake]

not really dead.
they just wanted to fix some of the pcboard problems.
and is working on it as they can.

[Efudd]

Indeed. I helped some (tried, Trifle and I work a little differently) with earlier builds, getting
pplc building, etc. I just don't want to duplicate work if he's made further progress with a
new build system.

I had started working on on a new build system and was working on porting it forward to
a slightly new compiler... my work has just been paused in a virtual machine for almost 2 years now. :-)

[Trifle Menot]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:40:17 -0800 (PST), Efudd <jason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

v0.014 is still on 4shared for download. They show it's been downloaded
17 times, last on Jan 21, 2016. No idea who those people might be, only
us three have discussed it here in the ng (you, me, and Corey).

To use 4shared you need an account. I got mine by signing up with a free
email address. Guess you can still do that. If you get past that hurdle,
it's easy.

I also have it available via emule. I don't run that all the time, but
if you want it that way, I can put the donkey to work. Just say when.

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:05:25 -0800 (PST), Efudd <jason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Indeed. I helped some (tried, Trifle and I work a little differently)

I added your work to the pot. But I did revise it, to fit my framework
and style. That's what editors do to authors. They mash the potato.

I am the first one who got the PCBoard source compiling, so I consider
myself the de facto editor of this "project." If you can call it that.
With only three people known to be interested, it's not much of a
project. For me it's more about programming and code than any desire to
actually run a BBS.

>I just don't want to duplicate work if he's made further progress with a
>new build system.

My new build system works. The reason I wanted it was to have a better
environment for debugging. You can't build the whole PCBoard executable
with debugging symbols on every module, it's too big and won't run.

In my new build system, I use a single command that builds the whole
thing, lib and main, and spits out the final executable.

When I want debugging symbols on a few modules, I go back into the
source\obj tree and delete the objects for the modules in question. Then
rebuild just those objects and relink to produce a new executable, which
is small enough to actually run. It's been so long since I've done that,
I don't remember the exact steps. But it's not hard. Much easier than
trying to use the CDC build system.

It's all kind of pointless unless you use it for debugging with Turbo
Debugger. But if you're really into that, I can package it up for you.

[Efudd]

I am interested in it. I agree that there is... very limited community interest. For me, my interest is that I was saving to buy a source license as a teenager when CDC went under. I looked for almost 15 years before finally finding it through you. =)

Where I last left off, I was doing a couple of things:

1) I couldn't get pcboardM.exe to run because it was too large.
1a) This led me down the path of going back in time and bought old borland/tasm/etc. manuals I could find on the internet to try to bring back old memories and get it to live again.
2) I started working on getting it to build under a more current borland environment with limited success.
3) I branched and started recoding some of the ASM back into C with the ultimate goal of a potential port for the purposes of "just because".

I now have more free time on my hands than I've had over the last couple of years and would like to revive working on this in that free time.

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 12:56:06 AM UTC-5, Trifle Menot wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:05:25 -0800 (PST), Efudd <>

[corey blake]

You are lucky.
I paid almost 2000.00 for that source code. it was for my version, 15.3 10 node license. the cdroms they sent me were missing 2 objs I needed to compile my source code. and when I tried to call them the next day, the bank just shut them down. and that was that.
I moaned and bitched all over the net for years until Trifle contacted me. and said he could bypass the missing files which were prolly for my version and node count. and he did.
but the bbs world was pretty dead by then.

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:05:53 -0800 (PST), Efudd <jason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am interested in it.

You also wrote (three years ago):

> VinylDoctor - was there anything in the original archives that matched
> "vmdata.lib" or "vmdata.h"? That library is used to build the setup
> utilities, uucp utilities and pcbfiler utilities.

> Incidentally, the company that made that library still exists although
> VMData went out of support in 1999. Still, one of their devs graciously
> responded to my email and provided me a current version....


Quid pro quo, friend. You can email it to my name (concatenated) at the
same email service you use.

[Trifle Menot]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:05:53 -0800 (PST), Efudd <jason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 1) I couldn't get pcboardM.exe to run because it was too large.

Works for me.

> 1a) This led me down the path of going back in time and bought old
> borland/tasm/etc. manuals I could find on the internet to try to bring
> back old memories and get it to live again.>2) I started working on
> getting it to build under a more current borland environment with
> limited success.

I already tried Borland 4.5. The objects are bigger, no reduction of
size. And to make it all work, you have to rebuild codebase with Borland
4.5 too. Not worth it.

Borland 3.1 is as good as it gets for PCBoard.

> 3) I branched and started recoding some of the ASM back into C with the
> ultimate goal of a potential port for the purposes of "just because".

It would be easier to write a new BBS from scratch than port PCBoard to
another environment. Nobody cares. Why build a rocket that has no reason
to launch.

A better use of time would be starting a toy network amongst the three
of us who are actually interested in PCBoard. We could run PCBoard UUCP
to exchange messages without the need of a usenet service.

If we never have any running application of PCBoard, we're just wasting
time.

[stbenedi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 3:24:06 PM UTC-7, Trifle Menot wrote:
> Compiles and works. Archive includes compiler and library for building.
>
> v0.014:
>
> > Fix giveup.c to release timeslices on WINXP, and remove its code
> > segment self modification mess, replacing that sorry code with a
> > function pointer that allows a debugger to work.
> >
> > Added ppl directory to main\obj, needed for building pplc.
> >
> > As previously mentioned in change 009, I expected to abandon the
> > CDC build system in favor of my new modular build system. Since
> > then, however, I wrote batch files that backport patches from my
> > new build system to the CDC build system. Using the two systems
> > in parallel is good for testing, I can verify that the new build
> > system does not create problems. And it's still possible to use
> > the CDC build system for releasing fixes, providing users with a
> > format already familiar to them.
>
>
> http://www.4shared.com/zip/uy-VvYWyce/PCBoard_153_source_code_v0014.html
>
> ed2k://|file|PCBoard%2015.3%20source%20code%20v0.014.zip|27066143|2C8A300076A3E9377AE0FC49F00F4B85|h=WFJN5IBGWL3UR3HY5EWUYG6U7LOHPC6B|/

and it is still not getting any younger too.
I do wonder thou what the bank did with it's rights.