[nos-bbs] JNOS vs. TNOS

Jack Taylor jack at n7oo.com
Fri Oct 14 14:18:14 EDT 2005

>From my viewpoint since both perform the same function, it stands
to reason that our limited resources should be applied to just one.

I've used both and from a SysOp maintenance outlook, TNOS is
more friendly than JNOS for the reasons mentioned earlier.  Why not
poll the group and find out which features are popular and combine
them in JNOS?

Both software's have 'stability problems' and it's been my
observation this has to do with the forwarding process.  One of
our local 'NOS systems lost its forwarding partners and operated
without crashing for several months.  It would be nice if 'NOS
could achieve the same stability as my ancient Linux kernel has.

73 de Jack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <maiko at pcs.mb.ca>
To: "TAPR xNOS Mailing List" <nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: [nos-bbs] STRICTCALL LOGIN

> Morning all,
> For what it's worth, I'm actually a CVS developer for TNOS,
> but honestly I haven't had ANY time to work on TNOS 3.0 which
> is now sitting at sourceforge. What's more of a dilemna for
> me is that I can't spend my efforts on BOTH projects at the
> same time. I had to pick one, and JNOS 2.0 was the result.
> I really would like to move alot of the work I've done over
> the last year to the TNOS 3.0 source tree, perhaps it will
> happen, who knows, but I don't want to burn out either. It
> is mostly a time and priority issue like anything else.
> If there are TNOS die hards out there, perhaps one of you
> would consider contacting Brian Lantz (he is still the admin
> for the CVS stuff to my knowledge), and tell him, "look I have
> some TNOS coding skills, I'd love to take it over type of
> thing". Even if it's only making sure that TNOS compiles
> on the latest GCC compiler type of thing, at least people
> can continue to use it then.

More information about the nos-bbs mailing list