Jump to content
ol.sc

Contiki - August 2015

Recommended Posts

Would it be a big effort to build a telnet client for the CONTIKI?

 

I don't understand what "for the CONTIKI" means. Contiki is a framework one can use to build event driven programs. It has libraries for quite some Internet protocols and and a widget library. From that perspective it would be a viable option to build a Telnet client "with Contiki".

 

I personally think that a Telnet client built using the cross target capabilities of cc65 to address the Atari, the C64 and the Apple II is for sure the thing that is missing most in the "6502 retro Internet arena". That could be built using Contiki or some other Internet protocol library (like IP65) - as long as it uses the cc65 machine abstraction layer allowing it to run on the three machines mentioned.

 

I'd consider such a Telnet client a medium sized effort - in whatever metric ;-) However I'm not capable of spending the time necessary.

Edited by ol.sc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oliver,

This is what I meant. As you wrote "CONTIKI is a framework one can use to build event driven programs".

That's why any app using CONTIKI has to be written with this programming paradigm in mind, so it has to be "designed for CONTIKI".

In my opinion a Telnet Client and an IRC Client would be the most usefull applications for CONTIKI.

 

Are there any activities on the Apple II / C64 side to implement such machine abstracted CONTIKI apps?

 

Regards

Marcin

Edited by TheMontezuma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion a Telnet Client and an IRC Client would be the most usefull applications for CONTIKI.

 

Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding: The .ZIP files I'm attaching in this thread actually contain an IRC client - although likely not as feature-rich and/or bug-free as desirable. Regarding the Telnet client I'm absouletly with you!

 

Are there any activities on the Apple II / C64 side to implement such machine abstracted CONTIKI apps?

 

Not that I'm aware of - so I'd say it's an educated guess to say 'no' :-(

 

I'm pretty sure that the cc65 CONIO layer is both fast and feature-rich enough to be used as abstracted screen output layer. And if somethings would be missing I'd be willing to cooperate on extensions. I.e. I very recently merged a soft80-based CONIO variant for C64 to the cc65 GitHub upstream. So the C64 now has a 80 column web browser (and IRC client). With about no changes to the Contiki code base. If there were a cc65 CONIO based Telnet client (either using Contiki or not) then that would have got C64 80 column support "for free" too.

 

What I want to say it that good coders aren't excatly standing in line nowadays to work on retro Internetworking projects. Therefore I personally would like to see the scarce resource spent well. With cc65 you get highly optimized libraries for the individual target machines written by people at home on those machines. Remember that I ported Contiki successfully to the Atari without having ever written any Atari software before. And you certianly don't have to write everything in "slow and large" C code if you don't like to. cc65 comes with a macro assembler that is at least good enough to be popular for projects not making use of anything else cc65 offers.

 

So for a Telnet client one might decide to implement the actual Telnet data stream parsing in 6502 code and implement the configuration menu in C. And it would still benefit from the machine abstractions. I.e. Contiki is in general of course written completely in C (as it runs on a multitude of CPUs). But for the TCP checksum calculation there's a 6502 code alternative. And the CS8900A driver is written in 6502 code. But all this 6502 still runs the same on the Atari, C64 and Apple II.

 

The point I'm trying to make is: From my perspective there are valid design point between the extremes of "fully machine agnostic POSIX C" and "register level hardware hacking in 6502 asm". From my perspective it's about making smart choices what tool to use for what purpose.

 

Just my two cents,

Oliver

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just getting back into this as the health issues come and go.... Nice catch on the bug.... I will be heading over to grab the latest and greatest and mucking about with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,


I just wanted to state that with 2.70 Contiki is now supported by Altirra's DragonCart emulation. Altirra's DHCP server provides an IP address to Contiki (192.168.0.101 by default) and the client type programs (web browser, wget, IRC) work just fine :-)


However I didn't manage to get the server type programs (web server, TelnetD) working. I added in the 'Dragon Cart Settings' - 'Forwarding address' the value 192.168.0.101 and the 'Port' 80 for the web server but couldn't receive web pages successfully.


Regards,

Oliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andreas,

 

Thanks for pointing out the ABBUC thread to me :-)

 

Just two remarks:

 

1. Returning to DOS

- IPCONFIG returns to DOS on using the UI buttons.

- WEBBROWS and IRC return to DOS on Ctrl-C.

- WGET returns to DOS when done.

- TELNETD and WEBSERV don't return to DOS.

When I tested the programs returning to DOS worked. The only idea I have is that your issue is related to the mouse driver used. In case you find something out I'd be interested to learn via email to [email protected]

 

2. Adding http://

As you'd expect the web browser checks if http:// is already entered - see https://github.com/contiki-os/contiki/blob/master/apps/webbrowser/www.c#L333

I have no idea why this didn't / doesn't work for you.

 

Regarding websites "usable" with the web browser you may want to check out https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.apple2/JiWYnLf22YA

 

Regards,

Oliver

Edited by ol.sc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found my Dragon cart that I misplaced sometime last year.

I'm having an issue getting ipconfig.com to pick up an IP address the only thing that has changed is my router. I upgraded to a Google Wifi router. I'm wondering if my Google router doesn't like the Dragon cart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or the google router is non standard and doesn't assign ip's based on the normal arp tables etc etc Sniff the packets and post the results for some experts to examine. I haven't run into any router that didn't get along with things...

 

Try turning off block pings on LAN side and see if that helps... if the router has it... that is a wonderful thing to have on to prevent malware that's inside your network from going out but can prevent some consumer items from working.... directv and at&t products are notoriously bad for failing if they can't ping a router...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or the google router is non standard and doesn't assign ip's based on the normal arp tables etc etc Sniff the packets and post the results for some experts to examine. I haven't run into any router that didn't get along with things...

 

Try turning off block pings on LAN side and see if that helps... if the router has it... that is a wonderful thing to have on to prevent malware that's inside your network from going out but can prevent some consumer items from working.... directv and at&t products are notoriously bad for failing if they can't ping a router...

Google WiFi routers have very little you can tweak or configure. I assigned a static IP through ipconfig and I still wasn't able to ping my atari.

Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if this is one of those google 'onhub' routers it rarely plays nice with stuff that is not from google or one of it's affiliated devices and OS etc. Wasn't all that long ago it wouldn't get along with anything from Windows 10 etc etc connected to it either way. You really need to investigate the webs about all the horror stories fixes and updates to make the things useful.. It would be your best bet to do that and check out some google friendly places for help on that. Someone was debating about it being a router, after all their troubles... my eyes glazed over and said... not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...