root@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) (03/29/89)
In article <3019@m2-net.UUCP> elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) writes: >Someone who runs a STadel bbs could send me a copy of their batch files.. ... >Or could somweone send me a small shell that can handle error codes passed to ... >I am using it to run my bbs so I need something solid. Have you considered wrapping Runit.prg around STadel? I wrote it as a batcher to wrap around STadel, so people could run from the desktop and still use events. Have you tried using the Teeny-shell, too? The example batch-files in the documentation for STadel are the batchfiles I used to run Pell under the teeny-shell. -david parsons -orc@pell.uucp
elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) (04/01/89)
(I sent you mail and it must apparentlty never arrived?) I am not actually using the stuff to run STadel but something that is run simularly.. I used Gulam way back when I was running STadel 3.1 and figured I could get my program working easily the same way I had Stadel running.. (I am running Forem ST now with Binkley ST as a front door mailer.. I have both forems fnet network and fidonet hooked up to it.. I'd love to get citadel working with it too.. It shouldnt be to hard to be able to get citadel working as a forem door program..) Can you give me your systems password so I can try to get your latest STadel and such or tell me a system that has it available for download? The only two reasons I stopped running STadel were because there were no time limits and thjere were no user levels other than a user and a sysop level.. But it would be great to run it from my bbs... Anyways, I just need to use a shell with the capabilities to take a returned error code and act upon it..
elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) (04/02/89)
Opps, Dave @ pell, I mistakenly asked for your system password when I MEANT to ask for your phone number.. Could you tell me what the number is?
steve@pnet51.cts.com (Steve Yelvington) (04/03/89)
elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) writes: >The only two reasons I stopped running STadel were because there were no time >limits and thjere were no user levels other than a user and a sysop level.. STadel and the other up-to-date versions of Citadel BBS provide controls on downloading activity, but not on message entry and retrieval. There are strong arguments against limiting a user's time for activities other than file transfers -- if you don't want to give people time to read what's on the BBS, why run it? On the issue of user levels, it simply is not true that there is only "user" and "sysop" level. STadel has "invitation-only private rooms" for discussion; the number of possible "levels" actually is the number of combinations of invitation-only rooms you have installed, plus one for Aide status, plus one for sysop (console) user, plus one for whether networking privileges have been granted. That's a great deal more flexibility than you get with an antiquated, linear "user level" approach borrowed from rusty old mainframe security systems. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax,amdahl!bungia,chinet,killer}!orbit!pnet51!steve ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!steve@nosc.mil INET: steve@pnet51.cts.com ----------- -or- stag!thelake!steve@pwcs.StPaul.GOV "A member of STdNET -- the ST Developers' Network"
usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) (04/08/89)
In article <3036@m2-net.UUCP> elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) writes: > >(I sent you mail and it must apparentlty never arrived?) Not too surprising, really, since I'm sitting 430+ miles away from Pell. >I am not actually using the stuff to run STadel but something that is run >simularly... >(I am running Forem ST now with Binkley ST as a front door mailer.. Gross. But it should work, provided you've got enough memory. What you can do with runit is set up a CITADEL.RUN (in the folder with runit.prg) like so: BIN=<directory with forem executables> HOME=<where forem wants to be home> ARGS=<whatever command-line arguments forem wants> AFTER=<program to run after forem exits, for cleanup> STARTUP=<initial programs to run when RUNIT starts> <cc0>=<programs to run when forem returns cc0> <cc1>=<programs to run ... cc1> . . . <cc#>=<programs to run ... cc#> DEFAULT=$EXIT You'd also need to rename the executable for Forem CITADEL.PRG and rename the Forem configur program (Assuming, of course, that Forem has a configure program - otherwise just find some little cookie program) CONFIGUR.PRG. (If you had forem return status=6 for invoking the DogNet mailer and status=4 for running a Uucp mailer, you would do: 6=DogNetMailer.prg 5=uucpmailer.prg in the <cc> area of the citadel.run file.) >Can you give me your systems password so I can try to get >your latest STadel and such or tell me a system that has it available for >download? Bix has the 3.3b version in the Jefferson Software conference. I think that some of the ftp sites around the net have them too. I mailed a copy of 3.3b (?) to lakesys a while back, but that's the only site that springs to mind. Pell is at 612-436-6450 these days, but that's not a good bet, because (a) it's only 1200 baud and (b) it croaked a couple of weeks ago and I'm out of town and can't get up the enthusiasm to go 860 miles to reboot the bloody system. >The only two reasons I stopped running STadel were because there were no time >limits... 3.3b and up have download limits... > ... and there were no user levels other than a user and a sysop level.. ... but no user levels. Why bother with them, what with the various permutations of room accessability , &tc...? -david parsons -orc@pell.uucp
elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) (04/12/89)
On the issue about limits on the persons time.. If it doesnt give you time limits on the files then someone could spend forever downloading and tie the system up for quite a while. If a person is given enough time they should be able to get through all the messages and still have time left unless your talkling about large message bases.. In that case multilined systems are the only way... And about the linear user limits.. I used the invitation onlly rooms for a while except that it did not allow me to easily add someone to a bunch of message bases. I switched to FoReM cause it had all the power I needed although I miss some of the features of citadel... With Forem I have ALOT more flexibility than I ever Had with Citadel.. However steve, since I have sent out some disks to you I hope you can send me the latest and greatest version of citadel and I will see what happens with it. I am not sure if I asked for the source code but if you can get that I would like the source too.. I want to make it run from within forem...
usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) (04/17/89)
In article <3045@m2-net.UUCP> elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) writes: > >On the issue about limits on the persons time.. If it doesnt give you time >limits on the files then someone could spend forever downloading and tie the >system up for quite a while. If a person is given enough time they should be >able to get through all the messages and still have time left unless your >talkling about large message bases.. Yes, but why lump it together into one time limit? The way that STadel does it just puts a limit on downloading - you won't be penalised if you download some files first and then decide to read the messages. A general time limit is, well, icky - I only know of 2-3 cases where a time-limit would save the system from being hogged. >And about the linear user limits.. I used the invitation onlly rooms for a >while except that it did not allow me to easily add someone to a bunch of >message bases. Floors. Dump all the rooms into a floor and do a floor invite. About as quick as bringing up a user-configuration menu and diddling access level (though I can see that diddling access levels is marginally more intuitive for most sysops - maybe 3.4...) >I switched to FoReM cause it had all the power I needed although I miss some >of the features of citadel... Hmmm. But what about the users? Both of the major TC variants of citadel haven't spent much effort on the sysop interface because both Hue (Citadel-86) and I prefer to hack the user interface. Having a clean sysop interface at the expense of a messy/awkward user interface is, umm, odd thinking for a BBS system. >I want to make it run from within forem... What does forem want door programs to look like? -david parsons -orc@pell.uucp
elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) (04/21/89)
Well if you want to preserve citadel's workings and just make two changes it would work just fine under forem... Since forem takes the modem off hook on all local logins it would be unecessary for the citadel running under forem to play with it... Hmm did I say two changes? anyways.. What forem will do is the following when it runs a door program. It creates a file containing the users name and time information etc (I think it would be best to ignore this for now though) and then from its menu it will run the program just as the desktop would.. A programs entry in the menu looks like this.. Citadel 24 intro.txt remote.prg local.prg exit.txt The above line "Citadel" would be the menu name given to the user.. intro.txt would be printed while it was loading the program (exit.txt is the exiting text) the 24 is the user level that the person needs in order to run the program the remote.prg would be the program taht would run if its a remote call and local.prg would be run if it was a console login.. I think that if you let citadel accept a command line shutting off any sort of line handling from citadel (Ie don't hang up the modem or even touch the lines... Just check for carrier...) and had it look at the carrier detect at the initial run of the program to see if its a local call or not and handle the text outputting accordingly it would work great.. When I ran Citadel on the st it was when the floor stuff was initially added and there was nothing like a floor invite at the time... I had alot of people that liked citadel alot but at the time there were not enough features in it.. So I went to forem.. I should be able to add citadel real easy since the way citadel works is very simular to things forem allows.. Citadel will run easily under 512k I do assume.. (I hope you were able to pull out something out of this garbage.. I cvant seem to type straight this morning..)