Text based synchronous communication tool for Linux?

[Janis Papanagnou]

I have faint memories on a communication tool that I think have used
on a DEC VAX under VMS in the 1980's. Unlike the common modern tools
like chat systems or SMS exchange on mobile phones it didn't operate
line-wise or message-wise, but rather (synchronous) character-wise.
And I think it was a tool usable only to connect people on the same
system (but I'm not sure about that). I thought its name would have
been 'talk' but searching the web led me to a document "VMS Phone
Utility Manual"[*] which describes such a tool (it's actually called
'phone') and it seems to be what I still remember about the tool I'm
looking for.

Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems

Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

Janis

[*]
http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/dec/vax/vms/5.0/AA-LA08A-TE_VMS_5.0_Phone_Utility_Manual_198804.pdf

[Richard Kettlewell]

Post by Janis Papanagnou
I have faint memories on a communication tool that I think have used
on a DEC VAX under VMS in the 1980's. Unlike the common modern tools
like chat systems or SMS exchange on mobile phones it didn't operate
line-wise or message-wise, but rather (synchronous) character-wise.
And I think it was a tool usable only to connect people on the same
system (but I'm not sure about that). I thought its name would have
been 'talk' but searching the web led me to a document "VMS Phone
Utility Manual"[*] which describes such a tool (it's actually called
'phone') and it seems to be what I still remember about the tool I'm
looking for.
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

ytalk would fit the requirements, I think, but it’s been abandonware
for the last couple of decades.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <***@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>,
Richard Kettlewell <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
...

ytalk would fit the requirements, I think, but it’s been abandonware
for the last couple of decades.

I used ytalk a lot back in the day; it was very cool.

https://ytalk.ourproject.org

[Janis Papanagnou]

Post by Richard Kettlewell

Post by Janis Papanagnou
I have faint memories on a communication tool that I think have used
on a DEC VAX under VMS in the 1980's. Unlike the common modern tools
like chat systems or SMS exchange on mobile phones it didn't operate
line-wise or message-wise, but rather (synchronous) character-wise.
And I think it was a tool usable only to connect people on the same
system (but I'm not sure about that). I thought its name would have
been 'talk' but searching the web led me to a document "VMS Phone
Utility Manual"[*] which describes such a tool (it's actually called
'phone') and it seems to be what I still remember about the tool I'm
looking for.
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

ytalk would fit the requirements, I think, but it’s been abandonware
for the last couple of decades.

I generally don't mind using "abandonware"; if it's a stable version
that has the well thought through features implemented without errors,
and that is focusing on its main task that it's designed for - that's
perfect. - The opposite sort of tools, tools that suffer from feature
creep, have their own principal issues.

From elsewhere I was pointed to 'utalk' (labeled 1.0.1.beta-7); which
also doesn't look like a "fresh" software. But anyway; I'll try that.

Janis

[John McCue]

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+***@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

Slackware comes with a utility called "talk", it is
disabled by default. It sounds like what you are
looking for. It allows 2 people to 'text' each other.

https://www.slackbook.org/html/basic-network-commands-talk.html

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

Slackware comes with a utility called "talk", it is
disabled by default. It sounds like what you are
looking for. It allows 2 people to 'text' each other.
https://www.slackbook.org/html/basic-network-commands-talk.html

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

[Janis Papanagnou]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

Slackware comes with a utility called "talk", it is
disabled by default. It sounds like what you are
looking for. It allows 2 people to 'text' each other.
https://www.slackbook.org/html/basic-network-commands-talk.html

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

As said, I think the historic DEC/VAX tool worked (also) only
locally; you had to log into the same VMS-system to communicate.

I'm actually looking for a tool that works across distributed
[Unix-]systems.

I'll look into the tools suggested so far what they provide.

Janis

[Dan Cross]

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

Slackware comes with a utility called "talk", it is
disabled by default. It sounds like what you are
looking for. It allows 2 people to 'text' each other.
https://www.slackbook.org/html/basic-network-commands-talk.html

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

As said, I think the historic DEC/VAX tool worked (also) only
locally; you had to log into the same VMS-system to communicate.
I'm actually looking for a tool that works across distributed
[Unix-]systems.
I'll look into the tools suggested so far what they provide.

`phone` worked across DECnet, but I don't believe it was ever
extended to work across TCP/IP.

`talk` will work between machines, over TCP/IP, but the way it
works is brittle and doesn't work well over the modern Internet.
In particular, it is de-facto limited to IPv4 and doesn't
play well with firewalls: it involves sending the contents of a
`sockaddr_in` across the network, and using that to set up a
(direct) TCP connection between processes. One could imagine
building a proxy for it, but to my knowledge no one did so.

- Dan C.

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:36:35 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross
works is brittle and doesn't work well over the modern Internet.
In particular, it is de-facto limited to IPv4 and doesn't
play well with firewalls: it involves sending the contents of a
`sockaddr_in` across the network, and using that to set up a
(direct) TCP connection between processes. One could imagine

Huh? I don't get how that works. You need a connection in the first place to
send anything unless you use a broadcast UDP address. You can't just
automagically set up a connection without the OS network layer playing its
part.

[Dan Cross]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:36:35 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross
works is brittle and doesn't work well over the modern Internet.
In particular, it is de-facto limited to IPv4 and doesn't
play well with firewalls: it involves sending the contents of a
`sockaddr_in` across the network, and using that to set up a
(direct) TCP connection between processes. One could imagine

Huh? I don't get how that works.

Yes.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You need a connection in the first place to
send anything unless you use a broadcast UDP address. You can't just
automagically set up a connection without the OS network layer playing its
part.

A `sockaddr_in` is just a data structure that names a socket
address. For the Internet family, it's just got a few things in
it: an address, a port number, a family type, and length.
That's basically it.

The walk `talk` works, the client sets up a TCP listening
socket, and then sends the address for that to the `talk` daemon
both locally and at the distant end; the talk daemon at the
distant end then alerts the destired user that someone wants to
talk to them.

Assuming that person wants to respond, _they_ invoke their
talk client, which talks to the local talk daemon, sees the
pending request, retrieves the socket address structure, and
uses it to connect to the originating user's talk client's
TCP listening socket.

The connection to the talk daemon isn't connection oriented
at all; it's done via a UDP packet. That is, the talk client
creates a listening TCP socket, takes the (binary) address
of the listening socket, embeds that address in a UDP packet,
sends that over the network, and on the distant end that
informatio is used to create a (TCP) connection back to the
origin.

- Dan C.

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:49:21 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:36:35 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross
works is brittle and doesn't work well over the modern Internet.
In particular, it is de-facto limited to IPv4 and doesn't
play well with firewalls: it involves sending the contents of a
`sockaddr_in` across the network, and using that to set up a
(direct) TCP connection between processes. One could imagine

Huh? I don't get how that works.

Yes.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You need a connection in the first place to
send anything unless you use a broadcast UDP address. You can't just
automagically set up a connection without the OS network layer playing its
part.

A `sockaddr_in` is just a data structure that names a socket
address. For the Internet family, it's just got a few things in
it: an address, a port number, a family type, and length.
That's basically it.
The walk `talk` works, the client sets up a TCP listening
socket, and then sends the address for that to the `talk` daemon
both locally and at the distant end; the talk daemon at the
distant end then alerts the destired user that someone wants to
talk to them.
Assuming that person wants to respond, _they_ invoke their
talk client, which talks to the local talk daemon, sees the
pending request, retrieves the socket address structure, and
uses it to connect to the originating user's talk client's
TCP listening socket.
The connection to the talk daemon isn't connection oriented
at all; it's done via a UDP packet. That is, the talk client
creates a listening TCP socket, takes the (binary) address
of the listening socket, embeds that address in a UDP packet,
sends that over the network, and on the distant end that
informatio is used to create a (TCP) connection back to the
origin.

What an idiotically complicated way to set up a simple TCP connection.

[Dan Cross]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:49:21 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:36:35 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross
works is brittle and doesn't work well over the modern Internet.
In particular, it is de-facto limited to IPv4 and doesn't
play well with firewalls: it involves sending the contents of a
`sockaddr_in` across the network, and using that to set up a
(direct) TCP connection between processes. One could imagine

Huh? I don't get how that works.

Yes.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You need a connection in the first place to
send anything unless you use a broadcast UDP address. You can't just
automagically set up a connection without the OS network layer playing its
part.

A `sockaddr_in` is just a data structure that names a socket
address. For the Internet family, it's just got a few things in
it: an address, a port number, a family type, and length.
That's basically it.
The walk `talk` works, the client sets up a TCP listening
socket, and then sends the address for that to the `talk` daemon
both locally and at the distant end; the talk daemon at the
distant end then alerts the destired user that someone wants to
talk to them.
Assuming that person wants to respond, _they_ invoke their
talk client, which talks to the local talk daemon, sees the
pending request, retrieves the socket address structure, and
uses it to connect to the originating user's talk client's
TCP listening socket.
The connection to the talk daemon isn't connection oriented
at all; it's done via a UDP packet. That is, the talk client
creates a listening TCP socket, takes the (binary) address
of the listening socket, embeds that address in a UDP packet,
sends that over the network, and on the distant end that
informatio is used to create a (TCP) connection back to the
origin.

What an idiotically complicated way to set up a simple TCP connection.

It wasn't the best protocol, but the complexity of setting up
the connection was not why.

- Dan C.

[Nicolas George]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
What an idiotically complicated way to set up a simple TCP connection.

What an obnoxious way to say that you did not understand the problem this
protocol is trying to solve.

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:06:38 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

As said, I think the historic DEC/VAX tool worked (also) only
locally; you had to log into the same VMS-system to communicate.
I'm actually looking for a tool that works across distributed
[Unix-]systems.

Set up an IRC server or there's plenty of telnet based talker programs.

[Janis Papanagnou]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:06:38 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

As said, I think the historic DEC/VAX tool worked (also) only
locally; you had to log into the same VMS-system to communicate.
I'm actually looking for a tool that works across distributed
[Unix-]systems.

Set up an IRC server or there's plenty of telnet based talker programs.

WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I haven't heard of "telnet based talker programs"; care to be
more concrete?

Janis

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:06:38 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to

chat.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Even MacOS has it installed.

As said, I think the historic DEC/VAX tool worked (also) only
locally; you had to log into the same VMS-system to communicate.
I'm actually looking for a tool that works across distributed
[Unix-]systems.

Set up an IRC server or there's plenty of telnet based talker programs.

* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I suggest you consult harry potter for that then. In the real world server
software is required whether its IRC, Teams, Slack etc.

Post by Janis Papanagnou
I haven't heard of "telnet based talker programs"; care to be
more concrete?

Talk servers that allow you to telnet to them to chat to other people.
Clearly you have done zero research on this.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <vj6c8m$be0i$***@dont-email.me>, <***@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
...

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

You may (and I stress the word "may") be confusing "talk" with "write".

"write" is old, old Unix and only works on the same machine.
"talk" is multi-machine (via the network).

[Janis Papanagnou]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:06:38 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou
I'm actually looking for a tool that works across distributed
[Unix-]systems.

Set up an IRC server or there's plenty of telnet based talker programs.

* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.

(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
In the real world server
software is required whether its IRC, Teams, Slack etc.

(I think this statement is not true in a [software-]world where
peer-to-peer software designs are not uncommon. Just aside.)

But I'm not objecting to any solution that involves a server; as
far as my requirements (see above) are fulfilled.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Janis Papanagnou
I haven't heard of "telnet based talker programs"; care to be
more concrete?

Talk servers that allow you to telnet to them to chat to other people.

I asked for more concrete hints. - But never mind; you anyway seem
to just prefer trolling instead of providing useful information.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Clearly you have done zero research on this.

Not true. The search term "telnet based talker programs" that you
emitted did not not provide sensible information to my requirements.

If you know something concrete on my topic - which I now doubt - or
are just not interested to help with your purportedly "knowledge"
it's best if you don't misuse my thread and use another place for
your trolling. - Thanks.

Janis

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:21:11 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

It was sarcasm ffs.

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
In the real world server
software is required whether its IRC, Teams, Slack etc.

(I think this statement is not true in a [software-]world where
peer-to-peer software designs are not uncommon. Just aside.)

Even peer to peer requires some program listening out for connections - ie
acting as a server.

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Clearly you have done zero research on this.

Not true. The search term "telnet based talker programs" that you
emitted did not not provide sensible information to my requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talker

Post by Janis Papanagnou
If you know something concrete on my topic - which I now doubt - or

Doubt away. I wrote a talk server, they're not complicated to implement.

[James Kuyper]

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

...

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Janis Papanagnou
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.

(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.
This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
incompatible with the real world.
Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
intended it literally.

[Janis Papanagnou]

Post by James Kuyper

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

...

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Janis Papanagnou
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.

(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

Thanks. - So much I knew of those books/films. :-)
It appears to be impossible to evade hearing of Harry Potter. ;-)
(I've even seen some, to be honest, but not sure I saw any film
completely. I like fantasy, but not this sort of fairy tales;
so it's useless to discuss that specific genre-variant with me.)

It was merely meant as a hint to the poster to focus on the topic
if there's any intention to seriously contribute (which his post,
in content and tone, obviously anyway didn't intend).

Post by James Kuyper
This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
incompatible with the real world.
Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
intended it literally.

Given that in Relativity Theory instant transmission is impossible -
light (electromagnetic waves) and information can travel only with
light speed! - and that quantum entanglement in Quantum Theory is
unlikely to have been in my mind when talking about our profane IT
tools theme, it should indeed have been obvious - but probably not
to Muttley - that it's of course not meant literally. - It was the
colloquial "instantly" used in a comparison to the other ways tools
typically communicate.

What was meant, if not obvious, I think could be easily derived
from my original post already, where I mentioned three prevalent
types of typical systems; write a complete message and <send> it
(to be seen at the addressee), write a line and <send> it, and -
what I meant - while typing the peer could see what you type (and
without an explicit <send>). - I'm sure most people understood it,
given their responses. - And tools with such characteristic have
also already been proposed.

Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.

(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
care much.)

Janis

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 03:04:15 +0100

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.

What you actually want is still unclear. If you need a communications tool
between machines there are a ton of possibilities even if you only want
character based exchange.

Post by Janis Papanagnou
(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
care much.)

I don't care either anymore. I gave you some info, use it or don't, not my
problem.

[Dan Cross]

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by James Kuyper

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

...

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Janis Papanagnou
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.

(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

Thanks. - So much I knew of those books/films. :-)
It appears to be impossible to evade hearing of Harry Potter. ;-)
(I've even seen some, to be honest, but not sure I saw any film
completely. I like fantasy, but not this sort of fairy tales;
so it's useless to discuss that specific genre-variant with me.)
It was merely meant as a hint to the poster to focus on the topic
if there's any intention to seriously contribute (which his post,
in content and tone, obviously anyway didn't intend).

Post by James Kuyper
This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
incompatible with the real world.
Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
intended it literally.

Given that in Relativity Theory instant transmission is impossible -
light (electromagnetic waves) and information can travel only with
light speed! - and that quantum entanglement in Quantum Theory is
unlikely to have been in my mind when talking about our profane IT
tools theme, it should indeed have been obvious - but probably not
to Muttley - that it's of course not meant literally. - It was the
colloquial "instantly" used in a comparison to the other ways tools
typically communicate.
What was meant, if not obvious, I think could be easily derived
from my original post already, where I mentioned three prevalent
types of typical systems; write a complete message and <send> it
(to be seen at the addressee), write a line and <send> it, and -
what I meant - while typing the peer could see what you type (and
without an explicit <send>). - I'm sure most people understood it,
given their responses. - And tools with such characteristic have
also already been proposed.

Taking what you wrote literally is an obtuse reading
of the original requirements, indeed. It's rather
obvious that the requirement was character-at-a-time
transmission, as opposed to batching into larger
messages (lines or otherwise).

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.
(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
care much.)

Muttley's the guy who doesn't know what a compiler is,
right?

- Dan C.

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:55:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Dan Cross

Post by Janis Papanagnou
(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
care much.)

Muttley's the guy who doesn't know what a compiler is,
right?

Do change the record, you're only making yourself sound like a fool.

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:57:00 -0500

Post by James Kuyper

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

....

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Janis Papanagnou
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.

(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

You have to wonder what cave he lives in never to have heard of Harry Potter.

Post by James Kuyper
This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
incompatible with the real world.
Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
intended it literally.

There are many solutions to what he wants, he only needs to google.

[James Kuyper]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:57:00 -0500

...

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by James Kuyper

Post by Janis Papanagnou
(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

You have to wonder what cave he lives in never to have heard of Harry Potter.

I took his comment literally, even though I thought it rather unlikely -
it's not impossible. However, his response indicated that he said it
just to make a point.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Janis Papanagnou

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:15:48 -0000 (UTC)

Post by John McCue
<snip>

Post by Janis Papanagnou
Some characteristics I'd prefer - not all supported by the 'phone'
utility - are that it's
* text-oriented (preferably with Unicode support), fast (no GUI)
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
* optionally: switching modes (instant/character-wise, line-wise)
* more than two persons can communicate
* works across distributed [Unix-]systems
Is there such a tool (free of charge and open source) available for
Linux? (Or something that comes close?)

Slackware comes with a utility called "talk", it is
disabled by default. It sounds like what you are
looking for. It allows 2 people to 'text' each other.
https://www.slackbook.org/html/basic-network-commands-talk.html

talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

As said, I think the historic DEC/VAX tool worked (also) only
locally; you had to log into the same VMS-system to communicate.

TSS/8 (for the PDP-8) had a talk command, as did the HP-3000. I used
both extensively in the 1970s to communicate with students at
other area high schools.

[Geoff Clare]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

What a meaningless comment.

[Richard Kettlewell]

Post by Geoff Clare

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

I was surprised by that. Do you happen to know what motivated its
inclusion? While this thread does show that there’s some demand for the
application, it seems a surprising thing to include in a OS specification.

[Geoff Clare]

Post by Richard Kettlewell

Post by Geoff Clare

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

I was surprised by that. Do you happen to know what motivated its
inclusion?

The original decision to include talk goes back to POSIX.2-1992, where
the rationale begins with this paragraph:

The write utility was included in POSIX.2 since it can be
implemented on all terminal types. The talk utility, which cannot
be implemented on certain terminals, was considered to be a
‘‘better’’ communications interface. Both of these programs are
in widespread use on historical implementations. Therefore, both
utilities have been specified.

Post by Richard Kettlewell
While this thread does show that there’s some demand for the
application, it seems a surprising thing to include in a OS specification.

It's part of the "User Portability Utilities" option (which includes
things like ex and vi), so it's optional for POSIX conformance but
that option is mandated for UNIX conformance.

[Nicolas George]

Geoff Clare , dans le message

Post by Geoff Clare
"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

Or they would have paid a little more money and that requirement would have
been discarded. Whichever is the least expensive: implement a stub command
or get rid of the requirement.

[Geoff Clare]

Post by Nicolas George
Geoff Clare , dans le message

Post by Geoff Clare
"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

Or they would have paid a little more money and that requirement would have
been discarded.

Not sure if you're just being flippant or you genuinely believe that
would be possible. If the latter, then you clearly know very little
about the POSIX/UNIX standards development process. It takes a decade
or two to remove an interface from the standard, as it first needs to be
marked obsolescent (to give application writers advance notice to start
phasing out its use). Take for example the tempnam() function: mandatory
for UNIX in SUSv3 (2001), marked obsolescent (but still mandatory) in
SUSv4 (2008), removed in SUSv5 (2024).

[vallor]

Post by Geoff Clare

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat.
Even MacOS has it installed.

"Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

_[/Users/scott]_(***@Mac-Studio)🍏_
$ type talk
talk is /usr/bin/talk
_[/Users/scott]_(***@Mac-Studio)🍏_
$ uname -a
Darwin Mac-Studio 23.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.2.0: Wed Nov 15 21:55:06
PST 2023; root:xnu-10002.61.3~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64

That checks out -- it's in the current MacOS. The man page reports:

HISTORY
The talk command appeared in 4.2BSD.

In FreeBSD 5.3, the default behaviour of talk was changed
to treat local-to-local talk requests as originating and
terminating at localhost. Before this change, it was
required that the hostname (as per gethostname(3))
resolved to a valid IPv4 address (via gethostbyname(3)),
making talk unsuitable for use in configurations where
talkd(8) was bound to the loopback interface (normally for
security reasons).
_ _ _ _ _

"ytalk" let's you talk with more than one person at a time, iirc.

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 19:30:10 -0000 (UTC)

Post by vallor
$ uname -a
Darwin Mac-Studio 23.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.2.0: Wed Nov 15 21:55:06
PST 2023; root:xnu-10002.61.3~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64

You need to update. The current arm kernel is 24.1.0 dated Oct 2024.