fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (10/20/88)
Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? I'm sorry if this is a frequently asked question. Thanks! Declan Fleming University of Illinois
map@raphel.UUCP (Mike Pearce) (10/22/88)
In article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public > domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? > I'm sorry if this is a frequently asked question. If you know of any BBS software system for unix, please post the information. Thanks also. Mike Pearce att!ctsmain!raphel!map
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM (Ed Morin) (10/23/88)
In article <611@raphel.UUCP> map@raphel.UUCP (Mike Pearce) writes: >In article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public >> domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? > >If you know of any BBS software system for unix, please post the >information. Thanks also. There is a package called "UNaXcess" (or something like that!) which seems to work ok. It's been a while since I've used a system with it up and running, but I imagine it's still around. Anybody got an up to date distribution? Ed Morin Northwest Nexus Inc. "Unix Public Access for the Masses!" edm@nwnexus.wa.com
netnews@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Robert Sklar) (10/24/88)
There are currently two BBS programs out for Unix
1) UnAxcess the origional, I have a copy if you want
2) XBBS, available for d/l by calling 714-898-8634
--
Robert M. Sklar - News Administrator @ CU-Denver
UUCP: {whatever}!boulder!pikes!netnews
CSN: netnews@pikes.Colorado.EDU BITNET: netnews@cudenver.BITNET
***** Ignore These Four Words *****root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) (10/24/88)
In article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public > domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? > I'm sorry if this is a frequently asked question. > Thanks! > Declan Fleming > University of Illinois With out a doubt, XBBS is the best BBS software available for UNIX (tm). It is completely configurable on a per user basis, supports multiple message areas, file areas, file transfer protocols, and is fully open ended in that you can add any shell script or application program to the menu for the use of your users. The latest release has full usenet support as well. The features are just too numerous to mention them all. The best part is its cost. It's free for the taking! Get the latest version from site alphacm. The file you want is /usr/spool/uucppublic/ALLbbs.tar.Z Here's a Systems/L.sys entery you can use: alphacm Any ACU 2400 8988634 "" "" ogin:-"BREAK"-ogin: nuucp There are several hundred sites now running XBBS including AT&T, IBM, The Justice Department, NYU, ... Larry Dighera -- USPS: The Consultants' Exchange, PO Box 12100, Santa Ana, CA 92712 TELE: (714) 842-6348: BBS (N81); (714) 842-5851: Xenix guest account (E71) UUCP: conexch Any ACU 2400 17148425851 ogin:-""-ogin:-""-ogin: nuucp UUCP: ...!uunet!turnkey!conexch!root || ...!trwrb!ucla-an!conexch!root
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (10/25/88)
In article <1567@pikes.Colorado.EDU> netnews@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Usenet News) writes: >There are currently two BBS programs out for Unix > >1) UnAxcess the origional, I have a copy if you want >2) XBBS, available for d/l by calling 714-898-8634 There's also AKCS, and Picospan, and....... In short, there's lots of "bbs" systems out there for Unixoid operating systems. Yes, XBBS and UnAxcess are available, but so are others... especially if you are willing to go beyond the free software and into the commercial arena. Most of the "commercial" packages go far beyond the free ones, including features such as linkage with Usenet, linkage with other conference sites (ala Usenet), threaded organization and much more. I've worked with UnaXcess some time back; it was the reason we wrote AKCS (I got tired of pulling my hair out, as did our users). Drop me a note if you'd like some info on AKCS (yes, it's one of our products, so I am of course biased), or see our regular postings in biz.comp.software. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
ssa@mrsvr.UUCP (Shahrooz S. Alavi) (10/25/88)
From article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu>, by fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu: > > > > > Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public > domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? > I'm sorry if this is a frequently asked question. > Thanks! > Declan Fleming > University of Illinois ME TOO !! ======================================================================= / /| | |\ \ | | /__ /_| | |_\ \ | | ...att!uwmcsd1!mrsvr!ssa / / | | | \ \ | | (414) 547-9429 / o / | |__ | \ \| | (414) 521-6607 (work) =======================================================================
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (10/26/88)
In article <10181@conexch.UUCP> root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes: | In article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: | > | > Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public | > domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? ... | With out a doubt, XBBS is the best BBS software available for UNIX (tm). I believe that the author of XBBS posts from the same site as the poster of this praise, so it may not be totally objective. I run a system which offers UNaXcess, XBBS, and Citadel, and has Magpie in test. I believe that I have at least a bit of experience with all of them beyond the casual user, and I'll share my opinions with you. Freeware: UNaXcess: Simple to use system, has messages in individual files, which allows easy operation but eats inodes and makes things somewhat slow when you get a lot of messages. I changed the menus and added all sorts of file transfer protocols. I spent a lot of time writing utilities for this one, and it is very easy to maintain. There is no file area control in the version I have, but access to messages is fully controlled. I am able to take files from uucp and turn them into messages or "uploads," and to delete files and messages fairly easily. Users are placed in classes, with higher numbers giving more capability. I looked at changing this so that I could control message read and write, file read and write, and submenu functions, but it is non-trivial. All uploads go in a separate subdirectory, and upload or download may be controlled within any file group. There is a user manual in nroff format which is better than only adequate, and which reduces user questions to a minimum. XBBS: I had an early version and fixed a lot of bugs. I also enhanced a few areas and sent the changes on. I don't know if they've been incorporated into the latest version. The user interface is like XBBS, with a main menu and file and messages submenus. The version I have has a fixed number of messages in a non-editable format. When I delete messages and repack all the message numbers change. I believe that most if not all of this is fixed in the current version, so it's probably not a drawback. Files are easy to add and remove in this system, and I share files between all three systems by links. Messages are not shared. Files delivered by uucp can easily be moved into the uploads area, but messages can't be faked in the version I have. The system of bulletins is quite clean. I have no idea how clean the code is in the current version, and it is supposedly modular, structured, etc, but the version I have is quite hard to maintain, with at least 70% of the code in one hugh module, goto's, lines of if's instead of switches, and hundreds of lines of duplicated code, right down to the spelling in the comments. The latest version I have checked is at least two version old, and what I'm running is older than that, so look at the code and make your own decision, the technique was improving in every version. What I have gives no control voer individual functions, but again uses level of authorization. Each group has an authorization level, both for messages and files. You may optionally move uploaded files to a protected directory until you have a chance to look at them, a feature which has saved me from posting viruses at least six times. The version I have has enough online documentation to be useful. It had a number of errors and ommissions, none serious except the typos. Citadel: A rooms based system, with control of each room, and both files and messages in a room. Rooms may be public, hidden (you need to know they exist), passworded, or invitation only (access control list). You can appoint aides for each room, allowing the people who use the room to control it. It has private mail, and both uucp mail and usenet groups may be accessed from rooms. uucp mail and usenet news may be accessed from this system, and there is an internal networking system on a by-room basis. Files from uucp may be turned into messages or uploads, and file deletion is easy. I'm writing a delete message facility, but all of the hooks are there. Uploads are available for download immediately unless the room is protected against download. There's an easy fix for this, I haven't gotten it in yet. No user documents yet, but only about 5% of users ask any questions after reading the online context sensitive help. Shareware: Magpie: A really interesting threaded messages system with files attached to individual messages. You will love or hate this one, it has a very strong flavor, and seems to appeal to students and businessmen, but not techies. I haven't tried to do much with the access control, so I can't say it there's much that doesn't meet the eye. Seems very solid. Payware: Picospan: I've only used this one, and it seems to be okay, another well written rooms system. Summary as a SYSOP: My machine is not run as a bbs, I just offer bbs as a service which using the machine to do other things. This system has been up since May 1988 (although down waiting for parts as I write this) and I ran CP/M based systems back in 1980. Be warned, I value low effort keeping it going! I find that UNaXcess is quite low overhead. Outside ov validating new users and checking uploads, almost everything else can be done by cron and scripts. I take statistics, get rid of old files, do backups, all by magic. This is a really nice mode to use, and when I am out of town the assistant sysop only puts new tapes in the machine for backups. It doesn't crash. XBBS takes a bit more care and feeding, manually deleting messages and packing the message files, etc. Bear in mind I have an older version and some or all of this may be better. It crashes a few times a week, but doesn't hurt the users or the files. If I were going to fix one thing I would make replies to private sysop messages go in general instead of the sysop-only group (where no one can read them). Even though Citadel is new, it takes almost no effort beyond developing tools. The tools for statistics are reasonable, and the access control is very nice. It never crashes, at least in a month of beta and a month available to the public. Since I run accounting I can see what resources these systems take. Depending on how they are used, UNaXcess or XBBS are the heavy CPU users, taking 20-40 sec CPU at login to find new messages, etc. I haven't profiled them, just measured the overall usage. Citadel uses 2-5 sec for the same type of activity. On a machine smaller than a 386 this could be important, particularly with multiple users. File locking looks best on UNaXcess, in terms of reliability, but the windows I think I see in the others are in miliseconds and have never been a problem. I would hesitate to mess with them unless I saw a failure in actual practice. As a user: Users split about evenly between UNaXcess and XBBS. In the month since I released Citadel it has become the most popular board, getting about half the total usage of the system, and 70% of the message usage. Disclaimer: All of this is what I have observed, with some items clearly identified as being for obsolete versions, and possibly fixed. I think that any of these systems would be useful to you, and that you should evaluate them on the basis of appeal to your users, effort required, security needed, and reliability. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) (10/26/88)
In article <1567@pikes.Colorado.EDU> netnews@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Usenet News) writes: >There are currently two BBS programs out for Unix >1) UnAxcess the origional, I have a copy if you want >2) XBBS, available for d/l by calling 714-898-8634 3) Magpie, available for download from Magpie Headquarters at 212-420-0527. Also available for download in the LIBraries of the UNIXFORUM Forum on Compuserve. -- Time is nature's way of Jean-Pierre Radley making sure that everything jpr@dasys1.UUCP doesn't happen all at once. CIS: 76120,1341
sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz) (10/27/88)
In article <12427@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > In article <10181@conexch.UUCP> root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes: > | In article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > | > > | > Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public > | > domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? > ... > > | With out a doubt, XBBS is the best BBS software available for UNIX (tm). > > I believe that the author of XBBS posts from the same site as the > poster of this praise, so it may not be totally objective. > That comment was completely independent of my own. Larry Dighera, conexch, is a separate site and has no affiliation, other than friendship, with me. > I run a system which offers UNaXcess, XBBS, and Citadel, and has > Magpie in test. I believe that I have at least a bit of experience with > all of them beyond the casual user, and I'll share my opinions with you. > > Freeware: > > > XBBS: > > I had an early version and fixed a lot of bugs. I also enhanced a few > areas and sent the changes on. I don't know if they've been incorporated > into the latest version. The user interface is like XBBS, with a main > menu and file and messages submenus. The version I have has a fixed > number of messages in a non-editable format. When I delete messages and > repack all the message numbers change. I believe that most if not all of > this is fixed in the current version, so it's probably not a drawback. > It's all fixed, BILL. I strongly suggest getting the new version. You will be surprising pleased with the new features and performance enhancements. The new version even has direct support for USENET. > Files are easy to add and remove in this system, and I share files > between all three systems by links. Messages are not shared. Files > delivered by uucp can easily be moved into the uploads area, but > messages can't be faked in the version I have. The system of bulletins > is quite clean. > There is new support code to transfer bbs messages and mail messages back and forth. > I have no idea how clean the code is in the current version, and it > is supposedly modular, structured, etc, but the version I have is quite > hard to maintain, with at least 70% of the code in one hugh module, > goto's, lines of if's instead of switches, and hundreds of lines of > duplicated code, right down to the spelling in the comments. The latest > version I have checked is at least two version old, and what I'm > running is older than that, so look at the code and make your own > decision, the technique was improving in every version. > Again, the code has been broken down into many more modules of a smaller size. Makefiles are available for Xenix286, Xenix386, SysV.3, and for the 3B1. As far as code technique goes, I guess we all learn from previous mistakes. I know I have and, I think, the new code shows just that. As a matter of a fact, very soon now, another new feature will be available and that is the sharing of message bases between different XBBS sites. It works very similar to rnews. > What I have gives no control voer individual functions, but again uses > level of authorization. Each group has an authorization level, both for > messages and files. You may optionally move uploaded files to a > protected directory until you have a chance to look at them, a feature > which has saved me from posting viruses at least six times. > Actually, Bill, you don't even have to do that. If you remember about the tilde option in files.bbs. These files become hidden to you users until you allow them. If this option is used; however, be sure to make the R(aw listing) option a higher priority. > > XBBS takes a bit more care and feeding, manually deleting messages and > packing the message files, etc. Bear in mind I have an older version and > some or all of this may be better. It crashes a few times a week, but > doesn't hurt the users or the files. If I were going to fix one thing I > would make replies to private sysop messages go in general instead of > the sysop-only group (where no one can read them). > I strongly suggest getting version 7.24 since it uses much more efficient. You have COMPLETE control over all the message bases. As far as crashes, honestly, I haven't seen that one. Bill... I ran vmstat on a user as he logged in using an interval of 1 second. The readings that I got were as follows for idle time: 96, 80, 23, 80, 96. You are correct about heavy cpu usage time for only the first 4 seconds! The reason for this is that XBBS has to read in the configfuration file, the privilege files, and then do a search of the user files. After this is done, cpu usage is really at a minimum. XBBS has gone through MANY enhancements, bug fixes, and bug fixes since you last downloaded the code. As I stated before, I have made MANY changes to the code and am really proud of its performace as you are with Citadel. My concept of a BBS may be slightly different than yours. I am sure that you will find that everyone likes to see different things. If we all had exactly the same likes and dislikes what a terrible place this would be. My only wish is that I had more time to spend upgrading the code and the resources to do so! BTW, there are now over 300 sites running XBBS world wide and, you wouldn't believe, the number of uucp requests and downloads being made on a daily basis. Sanford <sandy> Zelkovitz XBBS 714-898-8634
jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) (10/28/88)
In article <10181@conexch.UUCP> root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes: >Get the latest version from site alphacm. The file you want is > /usr/spool/uucppublic/ALLbbs.tar.Z >Here's a Systems/L.sys entry: > alphacm Any ACU 2400 8988634 "" "" ogin:-"BREAK"-ogin: nuucp The _best_ part about that L.sys entry is that 'alphacm' turns out to be a local call from any telephone -- no area code or nuttin' ! 8-) -- Time is nature's way of Jean-Pierre Radley making sure that everything jpr@dasys1.UUCP doesn't happen all at once. CIS: 76120,1341
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (10/28/88)
Since I've gotten quite a bit of mail on this, I am not the author or
maintainer of any of the BBS systems I mentioned in my posting. I
maintain my own version of each for my own needs and amusement, but in
no way should I be considered a supporter of any one over the others.
I'm convinced that I should get a newer copy of XBBS, since some of the
messages said "the code is worse than you said" while others assured me
that it was now much better.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -metbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (10/28/88)
Quoth map@raphel.UUCP (Mike Pearce) in <611@raphel.UUCP>: |In article <22400004@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fleming@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: |> Would somebody please point me in the direction of a public |> domain or shareware bbs that will run on a unix mainframe? |> I'm sorry if this is a frequently asked question. | |If you know of any BBS software system for unix, please post the |information. Thanks also. | I would like to recommend to you a very sophisticated and flexible BBS software package called Magpie. It is available both in single-user MS-DOS and multi-user Xenix/Unix versions, with a choice of two command sets available... the original uses a [Count] Verb Object [Modifier] command syntax called KillDwarf that I like quite a bit, and the other a more conventional [A..Z]BBSish syntax developed for the use of the New York Dept of Education's Communications system called NYCENET. The author is Steve Manes, and he may be reached via modem at Magpie-HQ, at 212-420-0527. The KillDwarf version may be downloaded there (if you login: as 'bbs') by typing E M and following the instructions... ('E M' stands for 'Execute Magpie_Download') the NYCENET version may be seen if you login: as 'bbs2'. Magpie is User-Supported software. I have no affiliation with Magpie except as a very satisfied user. I think once you see it in action (and go through the Tutorial provided) you will see why it was chosen for NYCENET. It has capabilities unequalled in the BBS world. Also in the works for Magpie is a MagNet netwoking system that will maintain the tree-structure integrity of the message base across all networked machines, DOS or Unix. I look forward to seeing you at HQ. -- MY CURRENT FAVORITE ADVERTISING LINES: |Tom Betz EAA#48267 "Look what they done to old Duke! |ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 Next year I'm plantin' corn." |UUCP: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP or "It's not >that< crazy! Rosemary..." | ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz