robertd@ncoast.UUCP (Rob DeMarco) (10/26/87)
[ The following is a file I made awhile back for some BBS boards. It is
formatted in 40 columns in order to make it easier to read for those mis-
fortunant enough (including me) to have 80 columns.(Go ahead, flame away!:-)) ]
The Future of BBS Software
--- ------ -- --- --------
The future of BBS software is very
certain. BBSs seem to be getting much
bigger, more complex,and more and more
impersonal by the year. Remember those
mom-and-pop BBSs several years ago?
Those creative and friendly BBSs that
made you feel at home? The time when
every new board meant new software with
its own personal touch? Well, those
times are gone. Now-a-days the BBS
market is being taken over by the mean
and evil C-Net. Not only C-Net, but
huge complex beasts like Pc-Board, GT
Procomm, and SysLink. Now granted, for
some boards this is really a good
thing, like Compu$erve or USENET news
interfaces, but the private BBSs are
becoming more complex, impersonal ,
and worst of all, they're all alike!
BBS boards are becoming boring because
they act the same way, look the same
way, and {feel} the same way. Indeed,
the most important thing to a BBS are
the message bases. But another very
important aspect of all of this is the
way the BBS feels.Next time you log on
a BBS, ask your self this: "Am I
logging on ANOTHER BBS?Or am I logging
on THE BBS?" And then think "How is it
possible that there be two BBS boards
with the same good users at the same
place and time that BOTH have good
volume of interesting topics. I think
your answer can be the attitude of the
BBS expressed by the SysOp. That
special something that makes that BBS
truly unique from any other BBS in
the known world.
What we need is a return to
fundamentals when talking about BBS
boards. So that humans set the
standards for the path of the BBS. Not
impersonal machines.
--
North Coast Computer Resources(ncoast) - 216-781-6201 (or 781-6202)
UUCP:decvax!mandrill!ncoast!robertdjpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (11/09/87)
In message <4942@ncoast.UUCP>, robertd@ncoast.UUCP (Rob DeMarco) says: > The Future of BBS Software > --- ------ -- --- -------- > BBSs seem to be getting much >bigger, more complex,and more and more >impersonal by the year. Remember those >mom-and-pop BBSs several years ago? Software is getting more complex, true. However, it's also getting more powerful. "impersonal" usually is a measure of the sysop's touch. Many sysops today care mostly about how many "warez" they can get out of their BBS, especially the IBM PC people with their Fido and RBBS clones and huge hard drives (RBBS has about 7 different ways to download a program -- but only ONE way to read messages). However, if you look around, you can still find BBS's run by humans, for humans... for example, I am a user on a BBS called "BioFeedback" in Houston, which is run by a 40 year old housewife using a C-NET clone, and THAT board certainly isn't "impersonal".... > What we need is a return to >fundamentals when talking about BBS >boards. So that humans set the >standards for the path of the BBS. Not >impersonal machines. Do you have any suggestions, or are you just going to moan and groan and gripe and b*tch? Here's where I think the BBS market is going to go: User friendliness. Think about it. It really is a shame that current BBS's, in order to be powerful, must be cryptic. Your average new user is as mystified by your typical BBS, as he'd be if put at the "login:" prompt of a Unix system. There is only one solution for this problem: Screen management. A good example are the "vn" and "gnews" interfaces for the netnews system, which basically give you a listing of title-author pairs, and let you move the cursor around to which bulletins you want to read. Instead of adding a complete Teco-like line editor, a simple full-screen editor would make entering bulletins much easier, even if it's simpler than MicroEmacs or VI (since we're talking about 50-100 line bulletins, not huge programs). Considering that almost every terminal program nowadays emulates some kind of smart or semi-smart terminal, I see very few problems with this approach. If all else fails, the BBS can have a line-mode that allows the user to download a suitable terminal program, so the excuse that users won't have the right terminal program is a crock, too. Another thing that I think is necessary: USENET-style bulletin networking. The limit on a popular BBS is the number of people who can squeeze through on a single telephone line. There's a couple of ways to remove this bottleneck: a) Buy a multi-user/multi-processing computer, and add telephone lines. Too expensive for most people, though... for a three-line BBS, we're talking about $300 for installation fees, and $45/month for the phone line, not to mention the IBM AT or other similiarly powerful computer with large hard drive that'd be necessary. b) A distributed phone-type network a' la' a mini-USENET, where several BBS's can share bulletins. This basically is like having a multi-user BBS, with the advantage that the costs are shared among a number of people, without the hassles of charging a fee (which will repel many people -- when there's hundreds or thousands of BBS's available, sending a couple of bucks to each one so that you can decide which ones you want to use, is out of the question). -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET from BEYOND nowhere: {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg, P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ut-sally,killer}!usl!elg "there's someone in my head, but it's not me..."
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (11/15/87)
In article <246@usl-pc.UUCP> jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Green Eric Lee) writes: (Hacked up and semi-quoted) >Another thing that I think is necessary: USENET-style bulletin >networking. The limit on a popular BBS is the number of people who can >squeeze through on a single telephone line. There's a couple of ways >to remove this bottleneck: > >b) A distributed phone-type network a' la' a mini-USENET, where >several BBS's can share bulletins. This basically is like having a >multi-user BBS, with the advantage that the costs are shared among a >number of people, without the hassles of charging a fee (which will >repel many people -- when there's hundreds or thousands of BBS's >available, sending a couple of bucks to each one so that you can >decide which ones you want to use, is out of the question). > This we already have. Call 'ddsw1' sometime at (312) 566-8911 or 566-8912, or any one of several others in Chicago and elsewhere (vpnet and igloo, to name two locally), and you'll see this type of distributed bbs in action... it is very much like a mini-Usenet, but optimized for use as a bbs.... Disclaimer: We wrote the software, and sell it, so this is sort of a shameless promotion..... -- Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200) "Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)
yates@BUCSF.BU.EDU (steven yates) (11/15/87)
How does one go about sharing a bbs among multiple phone lines ?
The impression that I received was that these multiple owners of the
bbs database were not necessarily in the same physical location.
I have just recently loosed a bbs on to the world, and am interested
in how to create and run a multi-node bbs as painlessly as possible.
Thanks in advance,
Steven Yateskoreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Steven Grimm) (11/15/87)
In article <8711150154.AA10324@bucsf> yates@BUCSF.BU.EDU (steven yates) writes: >How does one go about sharing a bbs among multiple phone lines ? >I have just recently loosed a bbs on to the world, and am interested >in how to create and run a multi-node bbs as painlessly as possible. > > Steven Yates Basically, you need one modem per phone line, and either a computer that will handle multiple modems or several computers networked together. Finally, you need the appropriate BBS software for whichever of the above you end up doing. There are numerous multi-line BBS programs for the IBM PC, and several for other systems as well. There are even a few that run under UNIX, though I'm not particularly impressed by them. I was working on a multiuser BBS for the Atari ST, and have it mostly running, but I've seen (about two years too late) how little money there is in BBS systems, and have decided to cut my losses. But I have learned quite a bit about systems like this; if you have more specific questions, please feel free to mail me. +New! Improved! Now 100% Artificial-+-+-----------------------------------+ |# # @@@ **** &&&&& $$$$$ % %| |Steven Grimm | |# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ARPA: koreth@ucscb.ucsc.edu | |### @ @ **** &&&& $ %%%%%| | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth| |# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ______________________________| |# # @@@ * ** &&&&& $ % %| | |"Let's see what's out there."| +-----with NutraSour(TM)! No natural colors or preservatives!------------+
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (11/15/87)
------------------------- I agree very much with Mr. Lee, that it's the sysop and the environment he/she promotes that makes a BBS. I still call up an OKC area BBS, because the people there are my friends, and the sysop makes you feel at home. I do want to pick one nit, though. In article <246@usl-pc.UUCP>, jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Eric Lee) writes: > a) Buy a multi-user/multi-processing computer, and add telephone > lines. Too expensive for most people, though... for a three-line BBS, > we're talking about $300 for installation fees, and $45/month for the > phone line, not to mention the IBM AT or other similiarly powerful > computer with large hard drive that'd be necessary. While the phone line costs are past quibbling, I should point out that there are multi-user BBSs that run under OS-9/6809 on Tandy Color Computers, which shouldn't run you as much as an AT. James Jones (speaking solely for himself)
yates@BUCSF.BU.EDU (steven yates) (11/16/87)
I agree. It is the sysop that creates the environment for the user. As a
matter of fact, because there seemed to be too many local BBS's that were
too technical, too strict, and well...kinda dull, I created my BBS to be
the opposite of all that.
I realize this is a shameless plug...but, the point to my BBS is that it
has no upload/download restrictions/quotas, no message restrictions, and I
encourage discussion on just about any topic. The users have also realized
that I is OK to poke fun at the sysops, the system, or whatever else as long
as it does not degenerate into slander.
Basically I am trying to give an environment and tone that is completely
different from other BBS's that I have called. It seems to have worked too.
I have been up for one week and have over 300 messages and over 120 files
uploaded with maybe 20 downloads.
But as to "what" is the board running on...you'll have to call and find out!
I'll give you a hint though...its name is "Junk In The Box" and the telephone
number is 617-536-9388.
Try it, and hopefully you'll have fun.
-Steven Yates
-Junk In The Box
-Proud to have been a bookend...bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) (11/16/87)
In article <558@mcrware.UUCP>, jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: > > While the phone line costs are past quibbling, I should point out that there > are multi-user BBSs that run under OS-9/6809 on Tandy Color Computers, which > shouldn't run you as much as an AT. > You know I once thought that OS9 was a better bet than MSDOS too, but the CoCo is not a cheaper way to go for this kind of a project. Lets see now: CoCo 3 with 128k 199.95 512k memory upgrade 149.95 Hard disk interface 129.95 MultiPak interface required for Hard Disk Int. 99.95 ________ Total 579.95 And of course this doesn't even include a Monitor or the Hard Drive itself. Considering that a floppy from Radio Shack costs 179.95 (just the drive) you can imagine how much to add for a Hard Drive. And then of course we need to buy the serial port plug in pak. It was about $75 I don't know what it costs now and you can only put on one of them. At this point you have a very expensive single port BBS. Personally I don't like PC hardware but I can buy an AT clone from any of a number of sources for that kind of money. And I don't need an At to run a BBS. An XT will work just as well. So much for a cheap solution. (All prices taken from Radio Shack's 1988 Catalog #419) bill gunshannon UUCP: {philabs}\ US SNAIL: Martin Marietta Data Systems {phri } >!trotter.usma.edu!bill USMA, Bldg 600, Room 26 {sunybcs}/ West Point, NY 10996 RADIO: KB3YV PHONE: WORK (914)446-7747 AX.25: KB3YV @ K3RLI PHONE: HOME (914)565-5256
madd@BUCSF.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (11/17/87)
|In article <558@mcrware.UUCP>, jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: |> While the phone line costs are past quibbling, I should point out that there |> are multi-user BBSs that run under OS-9/6809 on Tandy Color Computers, which |> shouldn't run you as much as an AT. |> | |You know I once thought that OS9 was a better bet than MSDOS too, but the CoCo |is not a cheaper way to go for this kind of a project. [cost estimate deleted] | Personally I don't like PC hardware but I can buy an AT clone from any of a |number of sources for that kind of money. And I don't need an At to run a BBS. |An XT will work just as well. | So much for a cheap solution. An AT is a better solution, though. Set up [insert name of unix for AT here] and it'll be relatively easy to keep a multi-port BBS running. Besides, overall response will be better if you use an AT, especially the new, fast ones (although at 1200/2400 baud, this is seldom an issue). With the prices on AT's falling like they are, you might as well get the extra power. |bill gunshannon jim frost madd@bucsb.bu.edu "They told me that it was 'user friendly' but that was one big lie. It is evil and it hates me." -- I. Spitzer
rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob Rogers) (11/18/87)
The "Citadel" BBS system has preserved a simple user interface and incorporates networking. Minneapolis and St. Paul (Minnesota) have a number of Citadel boards. The authors/porters of the PC, ST, and Amiga versions live here and a number of machines of all three types network by sharing "rooms" (the Citadel term for message areas. All three versions are public domain and are available in source and object form. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Rogers rogers@StPaul.NCR.COM NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (11/18/87)
In article <1010@trotter.usma.edu>, bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > You know I once thought that OS9 was a better bet than MSDOS too, but the CoCo > is not a cheaper way to go for this kind of a project. A *very* brief comment, since I don't want to distract from the main discussion: if you talk to CoCo users, the very first thing you'll learn is that the *only* stuff you should buy from Radio Shack is the CoCo itself, the mouse, and the MPI. All else can be had better inclusive-or cheaper from third parties (and even the above might well be purchased from an outfit like Computer Plus, which will sell them to you for less than they cost at RS). Rather than give a complete list, I would refer interested folk to RAINBOW magazine. James Jones
victoro@crash.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article <339@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <246@usl-pc.UUCP> jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Green Eric Lee) writes: >(Hacked up and semi-quoted) > >>Another thing that I think is necessary: USENET-style bulletin >>networking. The limit on a popular BBS is the number of people who can >>squeeze through on a single telephone line. There's a couple of ways >>to remove this bottleneck: >> >>b) A distributed phone-type network a' la' a mini-USENET, where >>several BBS's can share bulletins..... >> > >This we already have. > >Call 'ddsw1' sometime at (312) 566-8911 or 566-8912, or any one of several >others in Chicago and elsewhere.... > >Disclaimer: We wrote the software, and sell it, so this is sort of a > shameless promotion..... > >-- This, on the other hand, is just a pridefull user talking about a system that might go into production (but the author isn't worried.) People-Net combines a friendly Usenet interface and the ability to propogate messages between systems while maintaining threads. P-Net #1 is in San Diego,Ca at (619) 444-7006 P-Net #2 is somewhere in Los Angeles.. -- =============================================================================== ! Victor O'Rear {hplabs!hp-sdd, akgua, sdcsvax, nosc.mil}!crash!victoro | | ARPA: crash!victoro@nosc.ARPA and home: (619) 698-1680 (Sand Eigo, Ca) | | | | "Fools, Idiots! Don't they realize that they are dealing with forces | | beyond comprehension!" - "Doctor Science" | ===============================================================================
victoro@crash.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article <8711150154.AA10324@bucsf> yates@BUCSF.BU.EDU (steven yates) writes: >How does one go about sharing a bbs among multiple phone lines ? >The impression that I received was that these multiple owners of the >bbs database were not necessarily in the same physical location. On this system the messages appear like a normal BBS but when you comment in a confrence the message is propogated to the other system and any comments you make to it there are propogated back maintaining a connection to the original message. The increases the number of users on the confrence as the sum of both systems. Not all confrences are propogating, some are kept at a local level since the systems are a few hundred miles apart. -- =============================================================================== ! Victor O'Rear {hplabs!hp-sdd, akgua, sdcsvax, nosc.mil}!crash!victoro | | ARPA: crash!victoro@nosc.ARPA and home: (619) 698-1680 (Sand Eigo, Ca) | | | | "Fools, Idiots! Don't they realize that they are dealing with forces | | beyond comprehension!" - "Doctor Science" | ===============================================================================
victoro@crash.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article <8711161610.AA09022@bucsf> yates@BUCSF.BU.EDU (steven yates) writes: > But as to "what" is the board running on...you'll have to call and find out! >I'll give you a hint though...its name is "Junk In The Box" ... This is system is running on a Symemetrix 350. What's that you say? How about a 32016 12.5 Mhz system with 2MB of Ram, 260+MB of storage and three 2400 baud modems. Not bad for a nearly free (donations?) system. Hey, our sysop is a wonderful guy! -- =============================================================================== ! Victor O'Rear {hplabs!hp-sdd, akgua, sdcsvax, nosc.mil}!crash!victoro | | ARPA: crash!victoro@nosc.ARPA and home: (619) 698-1680 (Sand Eigo, Ca) | | | | "Fools, Idiots! Don't they realize that they are dealing with forces | | beyond comprehension!" - "Doctor Science" | ===============================================================================
jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Green Eric Lee) (11/21/87)
In message <575@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob Rogers) says: > >The "Citadel" BBS system has preserved a simple user interface and incorporates >networking. I've never seen "Citadel" myself. Would appreciate it if you sent me a couple of phone numbers. However, I DO have an example of where modern technology makes a BBS easier to use: Consider a full-screen text editor. This full screen text editor has 6 commands: cursor movement in all 4 directions, delete a character, and justify the current paragraph. I submit that this text editor would be as powerful as any other simple BBS text editor available, even the C-NET editor which has about 60 jillion commands doing all sorts of weird and wonderful things. Yet, it'd be ten times easier to use. User interfaces are the solution to the problem of complexity. Alas, we cannot yet assume that everybody out there has access to a bit-mapped display, so BBS's aren't going to be running mouse-and-icon based software anytime soon. However, we CAN assume that either a) everybody has a terminal emulator, or b), everybody can get one real easy, perhaps by a pre-login mode that lets people download one without login in. I mean, if I can get a VT100 emulator with Kermit for the lowly Commodore 64, I can't even imagine some computer that doesn't have an emulator available for it (except maybe the Sinclair ZX81 :-). Now comes the question of WRITING this masterpiece... err... maybe I'll have to put da programming where da mouth is.... -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg, {ut-sally,killer}!usl!elg "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." -- Mark Twain
FRUIN@HLERUL5.BITNET (Thomas Fruin) (11/21/87)
Maybe this has already been discussed, since I'm only a recent member of this mailing list, but has FidoNet been mentioned yet? FidoNet is a worldwide network of over 1000 bulletin boards, with electronic mail (with attached files) and Usenet like news. Each node acts as a normal BBS, but has special "areas" (newsgroups) where you can enter messages that are routed to other BBSs at night. Every night each FidoNet BBS either calls or waits to be called by another BBS, and both of them then swap messages and files. Each BBS has a large nodelist, which tells it how a message for a particular BBS should be routed. FidoNet used to offer only electronic mail (it still does), but its news service has become much more popular. FidoNet news is called Echomail, because messages are "echoed" to other systems. It works completely transparent to the user, and threads of messages and their replies are also kept. There are many many conferences on computer related topics, but also subjects such as Greenpeace, Science Fiction, CDs, Movies etc. FidoNet may very well be the largest computer network in the world, since each node has approximately 500 callers. That would make 1000 x 500 = 500.000 users at least, and the network is growing by leaps and bounds. The US has the most nodes, but there are nodes all over Europe as well (about 60 in Holland). And there is at least one on each continent. The important thing is that FidoNet is accessible to _anybody_ almost _anywhere_. No restrictions. Check out a Fido BBS near you! -- Thomas Fruin fruin@hlerul5.BITNET thomas@uvabick.UUCP 2:500/15 on FidoNet Leiden University, Netherlands
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (11/21/87)
In article <2027@crash.cts.com> victoro@crash.CTS.COM (Dr. Snuggles) writes: >In article <339@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >>In article <246@usl-pc.UUCP> jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Green Eric Lee) writes: >>(Hacked up and semi-quoted) >>>Another thing that I think is necessary: USENET-style bulletin >>>networking. The limit on a popular BBS is the number of people who can >>>squeeze through on a single telephone line. There's a couple of ways >>>to remove this bottleneck: >>>b) A distributed phone-type network a' la' a mini-USENET, where >>>several BBS's can share bulletins..... >>This we already have. >>Call 'ddsw1' sometime at (312) 566-8911 or 566-8912, or any one of several >>others in Chicago and elsewhere.... >This, on the other hand, is just a pridefull user talking about a system >that might go into production (but the author isn't worried.) >People-Net combines a friendly Usenet interface and the ability to >propogate messages between systems while maintaining threads. People-Net may have these things.... but your statement about "a system that might go into production" is utter bull-cocka. AKCS is not a system that *might* go into production -- it already is in production, and has been sold to several customers - including AT&T. It is a commercial product with our full support behind it. Binaries are available for Microport 286 & 386 as well as the AT&T 3b1 and 3b2 series. Source licenses are available as well. V4 will have a transparent Usenet interface (being worked on even now as I post this), and will be through testing in a couple of months. The system will keep followups with the original, just as we currently do with responses to items. The only real hang-up at present is the expire function (which is getting our full attention). Our current rev-level is V3.6.2 AKCS *already* provides the user with fully linked conferences, maintains threads, permits multiple feeds without having multiple copies of items ending up on your system, handles complete security and moderation in conferences, and interfaces with any desired transport mechanism from uucp to network mail to zmodem. Check your sources next time before you post such complete nonsense. The above represent the official opinions and statements of Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. and Karl Denninger -- authors and copyright holders of AKCS. -- Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200) "Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)
robertd@ncoast.UUCP (11/25/87)
In article <373@usl-pc.UUCP>, jpdres10@usl-pc.UUCP (Green Eric Lee) writes: > In message <575@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob Rogers) says: > > > >The "Citadel" BBS system has preserved a simple user interface and incorporates > >networking. > > I've never seen "Citadel" myself. Would appreciate it if you sent me a > couple of phone numbers. However, I DO have an example of where modern > technology makes a BBS easier to use: > > Consider a full-screen text editor. This full screen text editor has 6 > commands: cursor movement in all 4 directions, delete a character, and > justify the current paragraph. (I also assume an Insert Function) > I submit that this text editor would be as powerful as any other > simple BBS text editor available, even the C-NET editor which has > about 60 jillion commands doing all sorts of weird and wonderful > things. Yet, it'd be ten times easier to use. > > User interfaces are the solution to the problem of complexity. Alas, > we cannot yet assume that everybody out there has access to a > bit-mapped display, so BBS's aren't going to be running mouse-and-icon > based software anytime soon. However, we CAN assume that either a) > everybody has a terminal emulator, or b), everybody can get one real > easy, perhaps by a pre-login mode that lets people download one > without login in. I mean, if I can get a VT100 emulator with Kermit > for the lowly Commodore 64, I can't even imagine some computer that > doesn't have an emulator available for it (except maybe the Sinclair > ZX81 :-). How about the TRS-80 Model 100 portable computer? It has an 8x40 screen display and uses a wierd set of escape codes for the vt52. I never believe in assuming anything. I have many programs available to me that I just can't use because it assumes I have a 25x80 screen. I screen editor must take these in account. Not just what escape codes to use. [> Rd -- North Coast Computer Resources(ncoast) - 216-781-6201 (or 781-6202) UUCP: ...uunet!amdahl!sun!mandrill!ncoast!robertd
holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (11/26/87)
In article <5808@ncoast.UUCP> robertd@ncoast.UUCP (Rob DeMarco) writes: > How about the TRS-80 Model 100 portable computer? It has an 8x40 screen >display and uses a wierd set of escape codes for the vt52. > > I never believe in assuming anything. I have many programs available to me >that I just can't use because it assumes I have a 25x80 screen. > > I screen editor must take these in account. Not just what escape codes to >use. I have however, seen Emacs running quite happily (multi window mode even) on the TRS-80 Model 100. It's not impossible to accomodate a fairly large set of configurations. Ray [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] dis
Doug_Thompson@221.162.fido.UUCP (11/29/87)
> Here's where I think the BBS market is going to go: User friendliness. > > Think about it. It really is a shame that current BBS's, in order to > be powerful, must be cryptic. Your average new user is as mystified by > your typical BBS, as he'd be if put at the "login:" prompt of a Unix > system. Well that's interesting. But then show me any user interface that does not leave "the average new user as mystified . . . as he'd be if put at the login prompt of a Unix system". My bbs says "What is your first name?" How much friendlier can you get? After he gives his name and password, he is presented with a menu for which a "?" will yield help screens for each option. I really don't think point and shoot cursor pointing makes things any friendlier. If it is considerd unfriendly to have to type M for messages, or F for files, I wonder if that person should be using a keyboard for anything? Indeed since most callers are still using 1200 BAUD modems, moving the cursor around the screen would be painfully slow and decidedly unfriendly, not to mention increasing system overhead. Both are *big* drawbacks. I suspect the problem is more that new BBS users do not know what a BBS is, because they really are a new phenomenon for most people. If you did not know what a tv or a newspaper was, do you think either would seem user- friendly? Once people know what they are dealing with, they know that there are message areas and file areas, and maybe games and other things, and if they don't know that I don't know what you can do except tell new users, in a preliminary screen, what a BBS is. This would be un-friendly to most of those who call me first time since most do know what a BBS is, and if they didn't would not be calling. We learn about newspapers and tv by growing up with them, and being exposed in school. Before too long people will be learning about BBSs in that way also. Indeed some kids are already growing up with the BBS as part of their every- day environment. So the problem, that of introducing the adult user to a totally new technology, is really more one of "public education" than user interface. This is not to say that there is not lots of room to improve the interface -- but rather that "hard to use" is not really a valid criticism in most cases. A more apt description would be "takes time to learn". I think there is no effective sort of interface that doesn't take some time to learn, not just in practice, but in theory. Existing interfaces divide messages up into "Areas", or topics, like Usenet newsgroups. They permit listing of the messages with to, from, and subject information. Messages with the same subject line are linked so by pressing a single key you can follow a subject train through the message base. One can I)nquire for subject, to or from lines and get a display of mathcing messages, all with menu selections. The user can select a full menu (slow) or no menu (fast), but always has all the choices available by single letter commands. With a slow modem, everything you display takes time, and the more you display, the more unfriendly the system is to the thrid-time caller who's got the hang of it. > Another thing that I think is necessary: USENET-style bulletin > networking. The limit on a popular BBS is the number of people who can > squeeze through on a single telephone line. There's a couple of ways > to remove this bottleneck: Whew . . . what BBS systems have you been calling? The bulk of the message traffic on most FidoNet BBS machines arrives in net-mail, much like in Unix. And with gateway software such as is being used to bring this message to you, full integration with Usenet news can is also being handled by many. > > a) Buy a multi-user/multi-processing computer, and add telephone > lines. Too expensive for most people, though... for a three-line BBS, > we're talking about $300 for installation fees, and $45/month for the > phone line, not to mention the IBM AT or other similiarly powerful > computer with large hard drive that'd be necessary. > Well, costs vary per region, but any 640K IBM clone can multi-task with a $ 50 software package. The phone lines here cost $14/mo +$40 installation. So the costs of adding a line is not really very significant, nor is the cost of multi-tasking. What *is* being done is getting users to go to "end-point" software instead of terminal emulators to call the BBS. The end-point mailer calls in (any time, day or night, it can be automated) and fetches his mail, newsgroups or message areas he wants, and sends in outbound mail. Instead of reading and writing messages on-line, he does that on his own box. This reduces connect time from an hour to five minutes for a heavy user. You can see that to accomplish the same improvement in efficiency by adding phone lines, you'd have to add 12 phone lines and get well beyond the capacity of your typical micro. > b) A distributed phone-type network a' la' a mini-USENET, where > several BBS's can share bulletins. This basically is like having a > multi-user BBS, with the advantage that the costs are shared among a > number of people, without the hassles of charging a fee (which will > repel many people -- when there's hundreds or thousands of BBS's > available, sending a couple of bucks to each one so that you can > decide which ones you want to use, is out of the question). Of course the cost of exchanging data over an area greater than the local calling area imply increased, not reduced costs. The pressure on BBS operators to find funding sources in addition to their own personal resources is likely to increase. We've been doing this for four years, and there are more than 2,000 nodes in North America, South America, Europe, Australia and Asia. The total user base is hard to estimate, but probably exceeds 100,000. You might subscribe to comp.org.fidonet to learn more about BBSing. I agree there is a problem informing the public about the available BBS resources. I don't think user-friendliness is the issue though. I think it has more to do with a general unwillingness to spend the few hours needed to get familiar with a particular BBS, or read the information that is prominently displayed. I suppose TV is genuinely user-friendly, in that you turn it on and sit down and that's it. You are the object, it is the subject acting on you, and nothing is demanded of you. People are accustomed to media which act on them with negligible effort. The BBS is inherently a different kind of medium though, in being interactive. The process of interaction with any machine, or any person, is something that has to be learned. For instance, an automobile clutch is not very user-friendly, and is also an "interactive" technology. Yet who among us has not been able to master it? If it is too much trouble for a user to press M to get the message area, and N to see the next message and + to see the next message in a reply chain or - to see the previous message in a reply chain, that user is probably better off sticking to TV. --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ISIS: International Student Information Service 519-747-1332 2400/N/8/1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: watmath!221!162!fido!Doug_Thompson Unit B-3-11 !watmath!orchid!imprint Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: dt@221.162.fido.waterloo.edu (519) 746-5022 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISIS is a non-profit agency dedicated to international communication -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- * Origin: * ISIS INTERNATIONAL (221/162)
ins_atge@jhunix.UUCP (Thomas G Edwards) (12/04/87)
Something I noticed lacking from my high school was -any- kind of education about computer telecommunications, even relatively simple things like "modem literacy"...the use of a modem to access BBS's. I did take a course equivelent to a college intro to computer course which tought PASCAL with Data Structures, Iteration and Recusion, and such. If there are any high school teachers or planners, please consider the addition of "modem and BBS literacy" in your computer courses...one day is about all it takes to learn the concept. (Then you could keep one computer open after school for BBS calling use...) High School age students are probably the majority of BBS users, and they will take to the idea and technology rapidly. -Thomas