[WriteLog] Open Letter to Wayne - Networking

[Bob McCormick W1QA]

I too have been sitting back watching this thread.
Interesting ...

NetDDE and NetBIOS are depreciated things;
they're still being supported in one form 
or another - but if you were to start from
scratch today writing a network based application
I think one would most certainly use a TCP/IP
approach.

For that matter - though 1,000's of hams may still
have Windows 9X based systems in their shack or
contest infrastructure, as we continue to move 
forward I would expect that to diminish as well.

As a number of people have noted - many times a
network setup of WriteLog is comprised of a variety
of different systems - possibly from different 
owners.  These would likely all be setup differently,
have different O/S, etc.  This makes "getting it right"
all that more difficult ... (not to talk about putting
system settings back to their prior state to work
back on other networks whence the systems came from!)

Because of security (there really isn't any in
Windows 9X based platforms) and other changes, 
implementing WriteLog's current network setup
is fairly complex - and possibly a lot more 
frustrating - than maybe it should be.

Although I don't have a problem with getting a
networked WriteLog setup implemented, a number
of my ham friends would surely find it a more
arduous task, for sure.

I would most certainly welcome a revised network
version of WriteLog - one based on TCP/IP.
One with simplicity of implementation (setup) in mind.
And one based on the latest network, O/S, etc.

The issue of names versus IP addresses is a minor one:
the code to resolve a name (whether NetBIOS host name,
eg one that is not fully qualified, like "W1QA" ...
or a FQDN like "node1.w1qa.com") into an IP address
is pretty simple and straight forward; its part of
the network tools on every Windows system.
(Via NetBIOS over TCP/IP name resolution or DNS resolution.)

Picking a TCP or UDP port for WriteLog is also pretty easy;
there's even a standards group that maintains a list.
This is a very minor issue ...

Note:
With Windows XP Service Pack 2, which will be out shortly,
there are even more network security features ...
including a built-in firewall.  Applications when they 
install can call an API to allow the application to 
open (use) a port - or alternatively the user will have to
(via a number of different interfaces) tell the firewall 
to allow an application (like WriteLog) to use the network.  
[Getting off-topic, but these changes (enhancements) will 
effectively reduce or eliminate the vast amount of network 
abuse and exploits that we have today.]

I agree with the comment about CT: I also used it for years,
but having to sit in front of a computer for hours per day,
and then to go back to a MS-DOS style application with its
limitations was the first and primary reason why I moved
to WriteLog.  I enjoy operating with a Windows XP based
system that has two monitors - and running multiple
applications at the same time, having Internet access, etc.

Unlike CT which was based on a different architecture,
it is my perception that moving WriteLog (a true Windows
based program) from older network protocols and concepts
to TCP/IP wouldn't be like trying to port CT to Windows.

Of course, Wayne would be surely able to give us his
opinion and call on all this!

As for the bit on Internet connectivity (versus local LAN):
that may need a lot more thought.  You would need to punch
a hole in your cable/broadband router.  (And if you're not
using one ...)  Also understand that on the Internet, 
there are hundreds of thousands of hosts that are port
scanning - just looking for something to attack, etc.

WriteLog would have to possibly add a level of security
such that open ports to the Internet can't be exploited ...
or other vulnerabilities exposed, etc.  (A level of 
security that wouldn't necessarily be necessary on a LAN.)

For those of you who are doing LAN's ... you should follow
the IP conventions in RFC1918 for unconnected networks.
(Don't just pick numbers you like - they may be real, routable
addresses on the Internet or reserved for special purposes ...
and that in itself may cause you problems!)

If you're not familiar with this, best bet is to use:

192.168.XXX.ZZZ
255.255.255.0   netmask

where you can choose anything from 1-254 for XXX ...
and then your hosts would be ZZZ in the range 1 to 254.

For example:
192.168.1.1 through 192.168.1.254

(Do a Google search for RFC1918 if you want to know more
about what addresses you can/should be using.)

Bob W1QA
ex PA3GCQ / ZL2GCQ