Sending text messages on a LAN
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: Any lingering issues with 10.6?
Next: djvu files
From: Jolly Roger on 1 Mar 2010 21:23 In article <7v35mqFda2U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > One final question: All the approaches at some point require you to > identify the computer to which the message will be sent. When I used > System Preferences:Sharing:Services, I used the Edit... button to create > an "alternate" name for a computer; e.g. G4Laptop. And now the following > message is always dispayed in the Sharing pane > > "Other computers on your local subnet can reach your computer at > G4Laptop.local" > > I interpret this literally so does this mean I can use the .local name > in Terminal commands, and other places, to identify a computer? Yep - you should be able to use that name or the IP address in terminal or scripts to identify that computer. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Richard Maine on 1 Mar 2010 21:50 Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > Richard Maine wrote: > > Sander Tekelenburg <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > > > >>In article <7ur3ugFseuU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > >> > >>>Does anyone know of a cheap app that allows Macs on a LAN to send simple > >>>text strings back and forth without using the internet (e.g., entirely > >>>intra-LAN)? > >> > >>Have you considered iChat's Bonjour functionality? > > > > I suggested that possibility 2 days ago, but nobody seems to have > > followed up along that line. Maybe that suggestion got lost in my > > blather. :-) > > > Well, I did post this in a reply early on in the thread. > > "The reason I mentioned "without using the internet" was to weed out > apps that would introduce overkill or bloat to solve a very local > problem.... > The above line of thought is the reason why I'd rather not use iChat or > other apps designed for more grandiose purposes - personal taste. Oh. I hadn't recognized the parts you posted before as applying to the iChat suggestion, since they didn't use the name "iChat", and the description certainly didn't bring iChat to mind. As far as I can see, the solutions you are looking at are more complicated than just using iChat. You are, in fact, talking about using multiple things designed for much more general and "grandiose" purposes, while iChat is pretty specifically aimed at sending messages much like you are talking about, and it's Bonjour functionality is purely local, just as you are asking for. Still seems like a pretty good match to me. But if it doesn't fit your personal taste preferences, I won't argue with that. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Jolly Roger on 2 Mar 2010 00:10 In article <1jeouk5.16pe89j4lnzceN%nospam(a)see.signature>, nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > > > Richard Maine wrote: > > > Sander Tekelenburg <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >>In article <7ur3ugFseuU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >> Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>>Does anyone know of a cheap app that allows Macs on a LAN to send simple > > >>>text strings back and forth without using the internet (e.g., entirely > > >>>intra-LAN)? > > >> > > >>Have you considered iChat's Bonjour functionality? > > > > > > I suggested that possibility 2 days ago, but nobody seems to have > > > followed up along that line. Maybe that suggestion got lost in my > > > blather. :-) > > > > > Well, I did post this in a reply early on in the thread. > > > > "The reason I mentioned "without using the internet" was to weed out > > apps that would introduce overkill or bloat to solve a very local > > problem.... > > > The above line of thought is the reason why I'd rather not use iChat or > > other apps designed for more grandiose purposes - personal taste. > > Oh. I hadn't recognized the parts you posted before as applying to the > iChat suggestion, since they didn't use the name "iChat", and the > description certainly didn't bring iChat to mind. > > As far as I can see, the solutions you are looking at are more > complicated than just using iChat. You are, in fact, talking about using > multiple things designed for much more general and "grandiose" purposes, > while iChat is pretty specifically aimed at sending messages much like > you are talking about, and it's Bonjour functionality is purely local, > just as you are asking for. Still seems like a pretty good match to me. > > But if it doesn't fit your personal taste preferences, I won't argue > with that. He just wants to be able to display a message on a specified machine. Nothing more. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Ben Smith on 2 Mar 2010 04:12 On 2010-03-01 23:23:41 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> said: > Time to buckle down and learn Xcode. ; ) Yeah, I already know Xcode myself, but alas, no time to work on such a project. Maybe I'll have a quick look into it over the weekend or something. How hard can it be? :-) -Ben
From: Tom Stiller on 2 Mar 2010 07:49
In article <jollyroger-C965AC.23105701032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <1jeouk5.16pe89j4lnzceN%nospam(a)see.signature>, > nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > > Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > > > > > Richard Maine wrote: > > > > Sander Tekelenburg <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > >>In article <7ur3ugFseuU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > >> Sandstone <spambucket(a)infowest.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>Does anyone know of a cheap app that allows Macs on a LAN to send > > > >>>simple > > > >>>text strings back and forth without using the internet (e.g., entirely > > > >>>intra-LAN)? > > > >> > > > >>Have you considered iChat's Bonjour functionality? > > > > > > > > I suggested that possibility 2 days ago, but nobody seems to have > > > > followed up along that line. Maybe that suggestion got lost in my > > > > blather. :-) > > > > > > > Well, I did post this in a reply early on in the thread. > > > > > > "The reason I mentioned "without using the internet" was to weed out > > > apps that would introduce overkill or bloat to solve a very local > > > problem.... > > > > > The above line of thought is the reason why I'd rather not use iChat or > > > other apps designed for more grandiose purposes - personal taste. > > > > Oh. I hadn't recognized the parts you posted before as applying to the > > iChat suggestion, since they didn't use the name "iChat", and the > > description certainly didn't bring iChat to mind. > > > > As far as I can see, the solutions you are looking at are more > > complicated than just using iChat. You are, in fact, talking about using > > multiple things designed for much more general and "grandiose" purposes, > > while iChat is pretty specifically aimed at sending messages much like > > you are talking about, and it's Bonjour functionality is purely local, > > just as you are asking for. Still seems like a pretty good match to me. > > > > But if it doesn't fit your personal taste preferences, I won't argue > > with that. > > He just wants to be able to display a message on a specified machine. > Nothing more. Aren't there some network savvy Stickies applications? -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |