• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

DOS rdate for XTs - using Mike Chambers' minitcp

usotsuki

usotsuki

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
86
I originally ported RDATE with WatTCP and lost the source in a drive crash.

I tried to do it again using Mike Chambers' minitcp and couldn't get it working but he rewrote it from the ground up. I just copied its command line syntax on top of that. This is pretty handy for XTs without clock chips - put something like "rdate ntp.demon.co.uk" in your autoexec.bat to get the date off the network.

The code is compiled in Turbo C++ 1.01 - it can be rolled in Borland 3.1 but then it says "Null pointer assignment" at the end for some reason.

http://buric.co/dosnet/rdate-20120601.zip

I hope to have more Internet software for DOS soon.

ETA: This being minitcp, it needs a config file (minitcp.ini). Doesn't do dhcp yet unlike WatTCP. An example for the emu I tested with (Mike Chambers' fake86):

ip 192.168.0.81
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.0.1
dns 4.2.2.3
 
No need to "do C++". Binaries are available as well.

As for what you're fond of -- can't help you there.
 
So, how many RDATE servers are running? RDATE is an obsolete protocol.

If you want to set the time on your XT, SNTP is a much better way to do it - there are plenty of public NTP servers on the network. I use pool.ntp.org. From the mTCP readme:

sntp -set pool.ntp.org​

That will set the system time to the time provided by the NTP server to within one second. It's that easy. (You have to have mTCP setup first, but that isn't complicated. It's all in the TXT files.)

The issue of the programming language used is irrelevant for end users - they just want a binary that works. And as has been noted in other places, my usage of C++ is as a better C - not as an object oriented obfuscation contest. Anybody claiming to be scared of my C++ probably isn't that comfortable with C in general.

The issue about not liking the GPL is irrelevant to end users too. I don't see how giving code away for free and trying to ensure that other people who use that code do the same is a bad thing.

(And now the screen shot ...)

sntp_screenshot.gif
 
mbbrutman said:
The issue about not liking the GPL is irrelevant to end users too. I don't see how giving code away for free and trying to ensure that other people who use that code do the same is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could arrange a special, one of, licence. :) Anyway, speaking of TCP, I'd be curious what the OP thinks about the BSD licence.
 
Ole Juul said:
Perhaps you could arrange a special, one of, licence. :) Anyway, speaking of TCP, I'd be curious what the OP thinks about the BSD licence.
Click to expand...

OT, but I'll run with it. For what purpose? Most people are only interested in running the code, and there is no restriction imposed on them when they do that. This is a source code only issue.

If you release code under a BSD style license, then anybody can use it and they are under no obligation to contribute anything back.

If you release code under the GPL then the intent is that people who modify the code and redistribute something based on it need to make their changes public. For a hobbyist project I don't see how that can be a problem.

(Not that any of this is really going to be enforced. The FSF has some muscle, but for projects like this it is basically left to the honor system.)
 
mbbrutman said:
OT, but I'll run with it. For what purpose? Most people are only interested in running the code, and there is no restriction imposed on them when they do that. This is a source code only issue.

If you release code under a BSD style license, then anybody can use it and they are under no obligation to contribute anything back.

If you release code under the GPL then the intent is that people who modify the code and redistribute something based on it need to make their changes public. For a hobbyist project I don't see how that can be a problem.
Click to expand...

For the purpose? As a joke. :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to make fun of the OP, but the request did sound funny and I'm not entirely sure he was serious. This is the first time I've heard an end user say anything like that even though I've been involved in lots of GPL vs BSD discussions.

Anyway, for those that aren't aware, TCP was released under the BSD licence. That is even more permissive than the GPL and one likely wouldn't want to use the internet if one wanted to avoid it. Hence my baited suggestion.

BTW: I can contest to the fact that Mike's SNTP.EXE works as advertised, as does NTIME.EXE which is a WATTCP utility. As far as I know NTIME is free and does not carry any of the responsibilities like the GPL, although I wasn't able to find a licence agreement with my copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top