The Major BBS Forums (Archive)

Ok so I installed Worldgroup on a Windows 2008 R2 server 64 Bit. Which it works fine but when I go to do the old school console window reg hack its not where it says it is located its under the wow64 section and if I put the key in there it doesnt change the console. Anyone experience this and is there a solution?

djwyldeone wrote:Ok so I installed Worldgroup on a Windows 2008 R2 server 64 Bit. Which it works fine but when I go to do the old school console window reg hack its not where it says it is located its under the wow64 section and if I put the key in there it doesnt change the console. Anyone experience this and is there a solution?

Are you starting WG manually from an icon or automatically as a service when Windows Server starts?

Under Windows Server 2003 the Reg Key modification for the console will only work if you start WG manually from an icon, not as a service (at least in my case).

Yes its from an icon. I'm aware of the service icon thing. This I believe has something to do with it running on a 64bit os I believe.

djwyldeone wrote:Yes its from an icon. I'm aware of the service icon thing. This I believe has something to do with it running on a 64bit os I believe.

Interesting. I don't have a 64bit server running, but I don't remember the same problem with 64bit XP which I ran for awhile on a desktop. I will have to recheck on that now. Never tried 64bit Win7 or Win Server 64.

Toyduck wrote:

djwyldeone wrote:Yes its from an icon. I'm aware of the service icon thing. This I believe has something to do with it running on a 64bit os I believe.

Interesting. I don't have a 64bit server running, but I don't remember the same problem with 64bit XP which I ran for awhile on a desktop. I will have to recheck on that now. Never tried 64bit Win7 or Win Server 64.

which is why i have been working with visual c++ to get a worldgroup64 project compiled.

we need native support

dspain wrote:which is why i have been working with visual c++ to get a worldgroup64 project compiled.

we need native support

We need a updated code base and central repository. Has anyone (rick, daniel) thought about creating a central repository. Maybe a private repository somewhere that people who want/have something to contribute they can send it in.

I am itching to get a copy of Daniel's source. I want to update the web server portions. I would love to create a modern version of the web stuff. Using Webservices and jQuery to cutdown overhead.

jtolar wrote:

dspain wrote:which is why i have been working with visual c++ to get a worldgroup64 project compiled.

we need native support

We need a updated code base and central repository. Has anyone (rick, daniel) thought about creating a central repository. Maybe a private repository somewhere that people who want/have something to contribute they can send it in.

I am itching to get a copy of Daniel's source. I want to update the web server portions. I would love to create a modern version of the web stuff. Using Webservices and jQuery to cutdown overhead.

i have both a private and current cvs setup, private is for my own fork of 3.12 codenamed Worldgroup 3.12.xx and the current is a version of 3.30 with alot of free modifications with my premium modifications remaining closed.

dspain wrote:

jtolar wrote:

dspain wrote:which is why i have been working with visual c++ to get a worldgroup64 project compiled.

we need native support

We need a updated code base and central repository. Has anyone (rick, daniel) thought about creating a central repository. Maybe a private repository somewhere that people who want/have something to contribute they can send it in.

I am itching to get a copy of Daniel's source. I want to update the web server portions. I would love to create a modern version of the web stuff. Using Webservices and jQuery to cutdown overhead.

i have both a private and current cvs setup, private is for my own fork of 3.12 codenamed Worldgroup 3.12.xx and the current is a version of 3.30 with alot of free modifications with my premium modifications remaining closed.

I'd like to see you have a MajorBBS release... bring back the icon in a modern make. I think thats kinda what the pheedom system was doing but its disappeared... people remember MajorBBS and that is the whole name of restoration project... it's the name I love!

What version were they running some 7.x or was it 9.x ??? I just remember see'ing it at logon and scratching my head... I was thinking 6 + wg1/2 would mean 9 is the new version?

dspain wrote: i have both a private and current cvs setup, private is for my own fork of 3.12 codenamed Worldgroup 3.12.xx and the current is a version of 3.30 with alot of free modifications with my premium modifications remaining closed.

Where can I get access to the cvs for the current 3.30.

I would love to help port WG to C# myself. Of course, I have wrote C# for years and it's been a few years since I did any c or c++.

I was looking at some of the source today I downloaded from ricks website. There is a lot of code, but it was fairly well laid out. I don't think it would take much to port the basics. I also think there are a lot more hobby users that would take a interest in it if they could write a newer language.

Like I said earlier. I trying to trace through to see what makes the web side tick. I would love to build a new web ui for WG 3.3x using jquery and web services. It would also be nice to be able to embed a modern web server into WG (maybe CassiniDev, then it could run any asp.net technology). I guess you can tell I am a MS coder.... Bill gates has been helping to pay my bills for 16 years.

What are some of the things you would want to keep and what would you get rid of if it was ported. The whole idea behind the restoration project is to keep the software alive. I think it is possible, but for over 10 years WG has been stagnant. Lets breath life into. I would help, my payment would be what ever I can make from being an ISV.

Iceman wrote:

dspain wrote:

jtolar wrote: We need a updated code base and central repository. Has anyone (rick, daniel) thought about creating a central repository. Maybe a private repository somewhere that people who want/have something to contribute they can send it in.

I am itching to get a copy of Daniel's source. I want to update the web server portions. I would love to create a modern version of the web stuff. Using Webservices and jQuery to cutdown overhead.

i have both a private and current cvs setup, private is for my own fork of 3.12 codenamed Worldgroup 3.12.xx and the current is a version of 3.30 with alot of free modifications with my premium modifications remaining closed.

I'd like to see you have a MajorBBS release... bring back the icon in a modern make. I think thats kinda what the pheedom system was doing but its disappeared... people remember MajorBBS and that is the whole name of restoration project... it's the name I love!

What version were they running some 7.x or was it 9.x ??? I just remember see'ing it at logon and scratching my head... I was thinking 6 + wg1/2 would mean 9 is the new version?

Rick was running 6.25 of the majorbbs, i have been contemplating a majorbbs v7.0 fork, compiling an nt version of mbbs with baseline modules and internet connectivity (telnet,rlogin,smtp,pop3,http) no c/s stuff just the way we all remember it way back then minus the dialup lines.

havent had time recently, but got some free time opening up.

jtolar wrote:

dspain wrote: i have both a private and current cvs setup, private is for my own fork of 3.12 codenamed Worldgroup 3.12.xx and the current is a version of 3.30 with alot of free modifications with my premium modifications remaining closed.

Where can I get access to the cvs for the current 3.30.

I would love to help port WG to C# myself. Of course, I have wrote C# for years and it's been a few years since I did any c or c++.

I was looking at some of the source today I downloaded from ricks website. There is a lot of code, but it was fairly well laid out. I don't think it would take much to port the basics. I also think there are a lot more hobby users that would take a interest in it if they could write a newer language.

Like I said earlier. I trying to trace through to see what makes the web side tick. I would love to build a new web ui for WG 3.3x using jquery and web services. It would also be nice to be able to embed a modern web server into WG (maybe CassiniDev, then it could run any asp.net technology). I guess you can tell I am a MS coder.... Bill gates has been helping to pay my bills for 16 years.

What are some of the things you would want to keep and what would you get rid of if it was ported. The whole idea behind the restoration project is to keep the software alive. I think it is possible, but for over 10 years WG has been stagnant. Lets breath life into. I would help, my payment would be what ever I can make from being an ISV.

in the source33.zip from his website gogo SRC/icsrc/galwebd thats the web server.

my cvs is not public right now i want to clean it up more and give it an organized look like synchronet is running.

jtolar wrote:

dspain wrote: i have both a private and current cvs setup, private is for my own fork of 3.12 codenamed Worldgroup 3.12.xx and the current is a version of 3.30 with alot of free modifications with my premium modifications remaining closed.

Where can I get access to the cvs for the current 3.30.

I would love to help port WG to C# myself. Of course, I have wrote C# for years and it's been a few years since I did any c or c++.

I was looking at some of the source today I downloaded from ricks website. There is a lot of code, but it was fairly well laid out. I don't think it would take much to port the basics. I also think there are a lot more hobby users that would take a interest in it if they could write a newer language.

Like I said earlier. I trying to trace through to see what makes the web side tick. I would love to build a new web ui for WG 3.3x using jquery and web services. It would also be nice to be able to embed a modern web server into WG (maybe CassiniDev, then it could run any asp.net technology). I guess you can tell I am a MS coder.... Bill gates has been helping to pay my bills for 16 years.

What are some of the things you would want to keep and what would you get rid of if it was ported. The whole idea behind the restoration project is to keep the software alive. I think it is possible, but for over 10 years WG has been stagnant. Lets breath life into. I would help, my payment would be what ever I can make from being an ISV.

honestly, it doesnt need to be ported it needs to evolve.
the downside to a single loop process is people on channel 0 get to act before people on channel 255 (the final channel in the loop) so when it comes to games and turn based elements it can cause hassle.

what we need is a complete rewrite from the ground up using technologies available to us today i mean hell i can write up a threaded c++ server that acepts damned near unlimited connections in around 30 lines of code so what we need is to assemble a team of people, (testers, developers. hosters, etc) and codename a project Worldgroup64 create it from the ground up to support web,telnet, and rlogin connections, give it basic internet server support (nntpd,ircd,ftpd,telnetd,rlogind,httpd) it would basically look like one of the old unix bbs's from the 80's telnet in do your email,chat,files transfers, whatever and logoff, then spice it up with the active-html support so people can do their stuff through the web and then give it addon module support.

we need this up to par with the way synchronet is today

dspain wrote: honestly, it doesnt need to be ported it needs to evolve.

Yes! Preach On Brother!

dspain wrote: what we need is a complete rewrite from the ground up using technologies available to us today

Absolutely! I was looking at the code again last night and was thinking for the day it was really cool code, but now a days we can do the same thing to run faster, more efficiently and in fewer lines of code. We could eliminate just about all the limitations of the current server and raise a new breed of ISV's.

dspain wrote:what we need is to assemble a team of people, (testers, developers. hosters, etc) and codename a project Worldgroup64 create it from the ground up to support web,telnet, and rlogin connections, give it basic internet server support (nntpd,ircd,ftpd,telnetd,rlogind,httpd)

I agree, but lets face it, right now there is a very limited audience of people with interest. I mean this has been the theme of this board for the past 7 years or longer.

Here are a few questions that I have.

1. What does Rick say? I mean he does own the copyrights.
2. Do we close source it or open source it? Again, Rick?
3. What Stay's and What Goes? Starting a new thread on this topic.
4. Do we try to support existing WG3.3 modules (I think it would be possible, but not worth it). If we don't it means we are going to have to have a pretty strong ISV community.


My thoughts personally is that we close source it. Put in place a line count model like it is currently and then have levels.

Personal/Demo Edition - 4 incoming connections (Non-profit model)
Hobby Edition - 8 incoming connections (Non-profit $40)
Business Edition - x incoming connections (For Profit System $99)
Business Connection Pack ($x per x connections)
Corporate Edition - blah blah blah

This helps Rick recoup some of the cost of his investment. If you intend to make money on it then you should pay for it. The personal and hobby editions should not have any credit accounting to it. Of course, if it becomes profitable, he needs to share the wealth.

thoughts?

jtolar wrote:

dspain wrote: honestly, it doesnt need to be ported it needs to evolve.

Yes! Preach On Brother!

dspain wrote: what we need is a complete rewrite from the ground up using technologies available to us today

Absolutely! I was looking at the code again last night and was thinking for the day it was really cool code, but now a days we can do the same thing to run faster, more efficiently and in fewer lines of code. We could eliminate just about all the limitations of the current server and raise a new breed of ISV's.

dspain wrote:what we need is to assemble a team of people, (testers, developers. hosters, etc) and codename a project Worldgroup64 create it from the ground up to support web,telnet, and rlogin connections, give it basic internet server support (nntpd,ircd,ftpd,telnetd,rlogind,httpd)

I agree, but lets face it, right now there is a very limited audience of people with interest. I mean this has been the theme of this board for the past 7 years or longer.

Here are a few questions that I have.

1. What does Rick say? I mean he does own the copyrights.
2. Do we close source it or open source it? Again, Rick?
3. What Stay's and What Goes? Starting a new thread on this topic.
4. Do we try to support existing WG3.3 modules (I think it would be possible, but not worth it). If we don't it means we are going to have to have a pretty strong ISV community.


My thoughts personally is that we close source it. Put in place a line count model like it is currently and then have levels.

Personal/Demo Edition - 4 incoming connections (Non-profit model)
Hobby Edition - 8 incoming connections (Non-profit $40)
Business Edition - x incoming connections (For Profit System $99)
Business Connection Pack ($x per x connections)
Corporate Edition - blah blah blah

This helps Rick recoup some of the cost of his investment. If you intend to make money on it then you should pay for it. The personal and hobby editions should not have any credit accounting to it. Of course, if it becomes profitable, he needs to share the wealth.

thoughts?

well this would not be a port or a conversion, so what Rick would agree to is use of the name, all that ancient code would be thrown out all of it is limited to looping through a maximum of 256 loops anyhow, so that would be gone, Rick agrees to use of name compile it in osx-x86 osx-x64 win-x86 win-x64 unix-x86 and unix-x64 and cover all the platforms, as you said go different models.