emp@ut-emx.UUCP (naDev~tlhIngan~putulu) (06/11/88)
In article <712@cernvax.UUCP>, emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel) writes: > > Hi, USErs of the USENET NETwork! > > I have some questions you. I'm thinking on the possibility of setting up > a BBS System, and so I'd like to hear some of your opinions on the subject. > I've read some BBS advertisements, stating '24 hour - free service' or > things like that. So, > > If you're a SysOp: ...well, last I looked I was still one... > > a. What BBS system do you use? Are you happy with it? ...I use WWIV 3.21D. It's in Turbo Pascal, and has the Source Code availiable, which makes it tailorable to my needs. I'd love to see Genesis or Opus do that, much less QBBS. (Incedentally, has anyone noticed that QBBS appears to be a rip-off, at least in structure, to ISPF? Annoyed the hell out of me...) > > b. Can you work in your computer at the same time you're having > a "session"? ...yes, I do so under DesQview with no real problems whatsoever. I've heard that DoubleDos works fine, as well as CDOS. > > c. How do you manage to pay your electricity bills? 1/2 :-) ...actually, the average increase in the power consumption was only about 8 to 10 bucks more a month, so it's no biggie. (then again, I am living at home with my parents now, so the point is moot! :-)) > > d. If you know the BBS Systems Software distributed in SIMTEL20, > please comment on them, as to their features, and problems, > and userfriendliness. ....hmmm, if memory serves me right, that's RBBS. It's distributed by the Capitol PC Users Grope, and is one of the first major IBM BBS programs to gain wide acceptance. However, programs like WWIV and Opus (ACK!) have replaced it in popularity of late. RBBS just has this generic "look and feel" that annoys any user who's seen a more graphic-oriented board. Also, RBBS is written in BASIC, so it can be slow if the sysop hasn't got his system configured right. ...as a side note, a lot of users ans sysops around here spell it rbBS.... > > e. What makes you excited about BBS Systems? ...the POWER you have over those smarmy little users scums!!!! ...heh, no seriously, it's a bit of an Ego Trip, I have to admit. Being in charge of a computer information system tends to do that to you from time to time. Just ask any Site Administrator on the Net if he/she/it doesn't get off every now and then at possessing the power to do anything desired to a person's account. If they say they don't, and they MEAN it, then we need to get that person into politics, QUICK! ...it's also a window into the social life. A lot of BBS's become "Party Centrals", and transmogrify into a means of social unification ("Dammit, I wanted a BBS dedicated to Lawn Mowing, not a Match-A-Mate!" - Local Senile Sysop who has run at least 11 boards in the past 3 years, most of them Commodore ones...). They also act as a means of getting the software you need. What that means, I'll leave up to you... ...besides, it's fun unto itself, and it is good training for those of us who aspire to be power-mad Site Admins! <Uh-oh...I hear Boyd Merworth approaching with Axe in hand! :-):-)) > > f. What would you like to have in your BBS System that you don't > have now? Is there any system you've heard of that has it? ...well, I'd love to have a multi-user chat system combined with a BBS, much like the Galacticomm system provides, but I'e not the resources ($$$ for the phone lines, etc) to set one up. Other than that, WWIV handles all I need. > > g. How did you get your system? ...well, I bought the system from Compuadd (PLUG TIME: These guys are tops in my book. My EGA monitor went >POOF< about 4 months back, and they replaced it with no complaints whatsoever. I recommend these guys over Disney...er.. Computerland anytime!), and the WWIV I got from the author himself, Wayne Bell. If you want the latest version (written in C) (Yuck!), call this number: 1-213-208-6689 ...and tell him OM sent you. > > h. Any extra comments...? ....naah, I think that about sums it up. > > If you're a BBS user, ...well, I call and harass a lot of boards. Does that count? > > a. What are your impressions on the System you're loging to (not the > 'contents' of it - software, etc. - but the general appearence > and easyness of use)? ...well, the first thing I look for are new user messages that are either snotty towards the user ("Hi, I'm God. You are scum. Unless you kiss my ass, post at least 200 meaningful messages a day, participate in ALL discussions, and U/L at least 100 files a week, you will NEVER get more than 3 minutes a day in this system"), or the announcement that the sysop does not like handles for some really stupid reason (and trust me, they ALL are stupid reasons!). The minute I see that, I log off, and I let people know that this board may not be worth calling. ...if this isn't the case (and thank God these boards are becoming extinct as time passes), then I look to see what options I have that are availible to me from the main menu, and take note of which commands arent' standard ("You have Mail. Type in DHW-332Q to read your mail"). Then I look to see if the help level is configurable. If it is, I set it to expert. If I cannot set it, I usually dont' call back. When you've been in this as long as I have, you develop a dislike for seeing menus pop up every time you hit a carrage return at a prompt. ...ok, on appearance, Genesis looks the best from the user's side, but it's slow. QBBS has it's own ANSI driver system, which is faster than most other BBS systems, but the layered menu structure can get someone lost real quick if the user is'nt used to layerd menus. GT-Powercomm, WWIV, RBBS, Colossus and Fido all have the same basic menu format, with only some minor differences. ...overall, tho, the best one from the user side is Opus. It's clean and simple (thogh it DESPERATELY needs a global newscan for files!), but anyone with programming savvy could reconfigure WWIV to do the same. > > b. Do you by chance know WHAT system is? ...see above. > > c. What would you prefer about it? ...ditto. > > d. How does a BBS system contribute to your happiness? :-) ...it gives me a place to air my views where it can interact with LOCAL opinion. Net discussions are fine, but if you use local referrences you have to explain them each time you use them. ...it also allows me to acquire needed software from a centralized source. > > > In short, what system do you (not) recommend, and why (not)? ...well, from the sysops POV, I'd push WWIV, From the user's POV, I'd go for Genesis (for looks), WWIV (for ease of use overall) or Opus (in consideration towards those who can't rememberlong menus). > > Please e-mail your answers. > Thanks in advance, > -- Emanuel Machado ....well, I TRIED that. Seems our mail paths are still screwed up royally around here. Maybe when I return in a few months I'll be able to send mail with no problems... ...anyway, hope I could be of help! OM Ok, Boyd, you can pull the plu>CARRIER LOST
tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (06/14/88)
I am not yet a BBS sysop, but I am a frequent user... and I must recommend to
you wholeheartedly the Magpie BBS software. It is available in both DOS and
SCO Xenix versions presently, and a Microport Unix port is in the works. It
really embodies most of the qualities I seek in BBS software, and what
qualities it currently lacks should be implemented by the end of the year.
The Xenix version is, of course, multi-user.
I could describe it to you, but the best way to learn about it is to call
Magpie HQ and experience it for yourself. The numbers are 212-677-9487
(Trailblazer 9600/2400/1200) and 212-420-0527. If you have ever used BIX,
you will recognize the tree-node structure of the file system, where every
message (except for the root message) is a reply to another message, with
nodes specifying the origins of specific discussions.
The command set is essentially Verb Noun-Object [Modifier]. Because this
uses a two-letter command structure, all commands are much more intuitive
than an (often arbitrary) one-letter assignment could be... the [Modifier]
is sometimes used, but mostly two letters suffice.
The thing that this system lacks now is networking among systems. The Xenix
version supports shell scripts, which makes it possible to shell to rn or
readnews and support Usenet access right now, but MagNet is in development
now, and as specified will permit Magpies to message each other on-demand
(no National Mail Hour, which means the Magpie can remain up 24 hours a day,
unlike the various Fido and SeaDog systems extant) and retain the tree thread
structure intact, so each reply is appended as the child of the same parent
message as it was appended to on the origin system.
I suggest you log on to Magpie HQ and message Steve Manes (principal author
of Magpie) and John Cowan (principal author of MagNet) there. Magpie can also
be reached via uucp ( as 'magpie' ) but I'm sorry, I do not have a backbone
path you can use. If you log on to HQ once, you will find the address there,
and can carry on further correspondence via uucp.
I have never been enthusiastic about any BBS software before I ran imnto Magpie;
now I am constantly annoyed by the limitations of other BBS software I use,
especially when it comes to trying to read extended threads of message/reply
sequences and establishing and maintaining context. This is what Magpie is
best at... its very sophisticated file system capabilities are just icing on
the cake.
Let me know (or post a summary publicly) of your findings... I'll find them
very interesting.
Tom Betz
ps: You can, if you like, download the distribution packages for Magpie
(DOS .ARC, and Xenix .tar files) from HQ by typing EM (Execute Magpie_Distrib)
from any command prompt. (Command prompts look like this:
DISCUSSION NAME>
Enjoy!
tb
--
Tom Betz {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
ZCNY {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!tbetz
Yonkers, NY, USA 10701-2509 {sun}!hoptoad/
"Opinions? What opinions? These are >facts<!!"
--
Tom Betz {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
ZCNY {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!tbetz
Yonkers, NY, USA 10701-2509 {sun}!hoptoad/
"Opinions? What opinions? These are >facts<!!"davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (06/16/88)
I have used and enjoyed Magpie, and am looking at running it on my
system (along with several other boards). However, I am not sure that
it's for everyone, because the threaded organization is not as natural
to some as others. You can get sidetracked down a thread and have a real
time getting back where you were. I've used it for some time now, since
the PC days, and as much as I like it I would say that it's great for
fairly dexterous users, but not the casual user who wants to log in and
be able to use the system quickly. I suspect that there's nothing better
for frequent users (as you describe yourself).
I'm also looking at Citadel, and it has some of the features I like in
Magpie, at least as concepts. It has a mixture of msgs and files in a
more or less uniform manner, allows cross posting of files without
special intervention (separate msg areas can share file space), and
seems to have some very good admin tools, including fairwitness for
individual rooms as well as assistant sysops. I've only been testing for
a few days, so I can't comment more, other than the code structure is
fair and the readability is good.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -metbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (06/18/88)
In article <11264@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > > I have used and enjoyed Magpie, and am looking at running it on my >system .... > I'm also looking at Citadel, and it has some of the features I like in >Magpie, at least as concepts. My biggest problem with Citadel (at least on the implementations I've used) is its complete >lack< of message threading. There is absolutely no way to follow a reply thread, no way to indicate a reply to another message. In this, the two systems are completely antagonistic. There is one version of Citadel I have used which is capable of importing Usenet messages, but it seems to have little else going for it. -- Tom Betz {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ ZCNY {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!tbetz Yonkers, NY, USA 10701-2509 {sun}!hoptoad/ "Opinions? What opinions? These are >facts<!!"
demoedf@iitmax.IIT.EDU (ed federmeyer) (06/21/88)
I used to run a BBS on a Commodore 64 and I used C-Net 64 v12.0 software. I think from a SYSOP's point of view, that system can't be beat. Even the "look and feel" of the C-Net system from a users perspective is excelent. The message bases and U/D bins are logically organised, there is EXCELENT message threading!!!, E-mail, G-files, and the list goes on and on. Not only that, but since it is written in BASIC, with ML I/O routines for speed, you can easily modify it, and even create your own programs to be chained to the main program. This allows UNLIMITED expantion of features- you want a Dial-Your-Match? Add it! You want an archives list? Add it!! I have never seen any IBM boards that are as well organized and look as good as C-Net 64, for the humble Commdore 64!!! Now that I have a PC clone though, I would like to re-start a BBS and I am looking for good software, too! So, all I have left to say is- If anyone finds BBS software simmilar to C-Net written for the IBM, let us know! Or, if you are thinking of writing a BBS (Listen up companies, your buying public is speaking!) Log onto your local Commdore BBS, and give C-Net a try. Once you do, I'm sure you will say to yourself, "Gee, this is exactally how I want MY BBS to be like!" PS. Don't confuse Color 64 BBS with C-Net... C-Net is several orders of magnitude better!!! Ed Federmeyer