Bradley D. Thornton | 1 Feb 2012 14:24
Picon

Re: [gopher] FreeArchie


Yes I would like to have these Archie sources too.

A link would be great, and email to me would suffice too.

I try to keep an archive of this kind of thing.

On 01/30/2012 06:44 AM, R.A.Pavlov wrote:
> I have some other archie source, if this helps (archie-1.4.1.tar.gz).
> Didn't try to compile it though.
> 
> On 29.01.2012 11:41, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> Does anyone on the list still have the FreeArchie[0] source
>> lying around? The FTP server specified does not have the
>> source anymore. It would be interesting to see how the search
>> on the Internet really evolved.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Christoph Lohmann
>>
>> [0] http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~rootd/freearchie/archie_7.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gopher-Project mailing list
>> Gopher-Project@...
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
(Continue reading)

Cameron Kaiser | 1 Feb 2012 15:05
Favicon

Re: [gopher] FreeArchie

> Yes I would like to have these Archie sources too.
> 
> A link would be great, and email to me would suffice too.
> 
> I try to keep an archive of this kind of thing.

Bradley, did you get Northtech's gopher back up? The bot marked it
inactive a couple weeks ago and hasn't been able to reestablish it.

--

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- The pace of life isn't the problem. It's the sudden stop at the end. -------
Bradley D. Thornton | 2 Feb 2012 01:46
Picon

Re: [gopher] FreeArchie


On 02/01/2012 06:05 AM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>> Yes I would like to have these Archie sources too.
>>
>> A link would be great, and email to me would suffice too.
>>
>> I try to keep an archive of this kind of thing.
> 
> Bradley, did you get Northtech's gopher back up? The bot marked it
> inactive a couple weeks ago and hasn't been able to reestablish it.

Oh, man.... My Der...

I just checked, and it's running fine. There was indeed a problem
however, the URIs pointed to other than that which Bucktooth is
listening and so the requests were going nowhere from the main page.

I've fixed this for the moment, so gopher://gopher.NorthTech.US should work.

Right now, it's being forwarded from a NoIP DynDNS setup. It was working
fine before but I did some moving around so I'm not sure what happened.

I'm going to move it out of my home here and up to my VMware server farm
at One Wilshire, so I don't have these problems.

Just to be sure, the correct URI to point to from that point on will be:

gopher://gopher.NorthTech.US (i.e., NOT gopher://gopher.linboard.net)

So even when I do a gopher://hammer I only get the first page here and
(Continue reading)

danny | 2 Feb 2012 05:47

Re: [gopher] FreeArchie

I received an email from Alan Emtage yesterday regarding the actual
sources to the commercial version from many years ago.  He has recently
sent a tape with the sources to the computer history museum in San Jose to
see if they can be read.

Sounds very likely we may get to have a peek at the commercial version
source if it can be read (He still holds the rights)

> Hello.
>
> danny wrote:
>> You had to remind me of that - ARRGH!! lol
>>
>> I have it somewhere around here (ran it at missing years ago).  I will
>> roll through a few boxes and see if I can find it (it's either on one of
>> the OG Sparcstations, Tatung, or Solbourne boxes).  How fast do you need
>> it?  May take me a bit to spool some of these old boxes back up.
>
> My request is for historical reasons. It doesn't hurry, but
> if the source is public, then it may be archived for further
> generations.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christoph Lohmann
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gopher-Project mailing list
> Gopher-Project@...
(Continue reading)

Cameron Kaiser | 22 Feb 2012 01:24
Favicon

[gopher] Overbite: should the default for clicks be inline view?

So I'm doing my usual code review on OverbiteFF. Here's a question for you
all: should the default when you click on a link be to open it in inline
view, or leave it alone and just use the + ? (In the first case, I'd repurpose
the icon to the old behaviour.)

--

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- Conscience makes egotists of us all. -- Oscar Wilde ------------------------
Jacob Dahl Pind | 25 Feb 2012 17:34

Re: [gopher] Overbite: should the default for clicks be inline view?

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:

> So I'm doing my usual code review on OverbiteFF. Here's a question for you
> all: should the default when you click on a link be to open it in inline
> view, or leave it alone and just use the + ? (In the first case, I'd repurpose
> the icon to the old behaviour.)

Personaly I found the inlineing a bit confusing, would it be possible to 
have a sort of configuration option to select either behaviour ?

regards

--
Jacob Dahl Pind | telefisk.org | fidonet 2:230/38.8
Bradley D. Thornton | 25 Feb 2012 18:44
Picon

Re: [gopher] Overbite: should the default for clicks be inline view?


On 02/25/2012 08:34 AM, Jacob Dahl Pind wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> 
>> So I'm doing my usual code review on OverbiteFF. Here's a question for
>> you
>> all: should the default when you click on a link be to open it in inline
>> view, or leave it alone and just use the + ? (In the first case, I'd
>> repurpose
>> the icon to the old behaviour.)
> 
> Personaly I found the inlineing a bit confusing, would it be possible to
> have a sort of configuration option to select either behaviour ?

Okay I have to ask. What do we mean by "Inline view"?

Are we talking about the little plus sign icons to the left of the
selectors where we have a choice of expanding say, a text file on that
page or clicking on the selector itself to take us to the document itself?

If that's so, then aren't we doing *both* right now?

Please forgive my ignorance, I can't really make a recommendation if I
don't understand the question.

Kindest regards,

--

-- 
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
(Continue reading)

Cameron Kaiser | 25 Feb 2012 18:50
Favicon

Re: [gopher] Overbite: should the default for clicks be inline view?

> >> So I'm doing my usual code review on OverbiteFF. Here's a question for
> >> you
> >> all: should the default when you click on a link be to open it in inline
> >> view, or leave it alone and just use the + ? (In the first case, I'd
> >> repurpose
> >> the icon to the old behaviour.)
> > 
> > Personaly I found the inlineing a bit confusing, would it be possible to
> > have a sort of configuration option to select either behaviour ?
> 
> Okay I have to ask. What do we mean by "Inline view"?
> 
> Are we talking about the little plus sign icons to the left of the
> selectors where we have a choice of expanding say, a text file on that
> page or clicking on the selector itself to take us to the document itself?
> 
> If that's so, then aren't we doing *both* right now?

Yes. What I was considering doing is making the selector do the open-in-line
also, and only have the icon switch to the new document.

--

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- Never trust a computer you can't lift. -- Mac rollout, 24 January 1984 -----
Cameron Kaiser | 25 Feb 2012 18:50
Favicon

Re: [gopher] Overbite: should the default for clicks be inline view?

> Personaly I found the inlineing a bit confusing,

How so?

--

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- Who ever said the human race was logical? -- Gillian, Star Trek IV ---------
Bradley D. Thornton | 25 Feb 2012 19:18
Picon

Re: [gopher] Overbite: should the default for clicks be inline view?


On 02/25/2012 09:50 AM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>>>> So I'm doing my usual code review on OverbiteFF. Here's a question for
>>>> you
>>>> all: should the default when you click on a link be to open it in inline
>>>> view, or leave it alone and just use the + ? (In the first case, I'd
>>>> repurpose
>>>> the icon to the old behaviour.)
>>>
>>> Personaly I found the inlineing a bit confusing, would it be possible to
>>> have a sort of configuration option to select either behaviour ?
>>
>> Okay I have to ask. What do we mean by "Inline view"?
>>
>> Are we talking about the little plus sign icons to the left of the
>> selectors where we have a choice of expanding say, a text file on that
>> page or clicking on the selector itself to take us to the document itself?
>>
>> If that's so, then aren't we doing *both* right now?
> 
> Yes. What I was considering doing is making the selector do the open-in-line
> also, and only have the icon switch to the new document.

Okay. Well here's my take on that....

I kind of expect, that when I click on a link, it open's a new page, for
lack of a better term (takes me to the doc, next menu/page, image, or
downloads the binfile).

If I see a plus sign, I rather expect it to *expand*, on that page,
(Continue reading)


Gmane