bernstei@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Drew E Bernstein) (11/01/88)
In article <99.235EA92D@medsoft> you write: >Are you sure you want to use PC-Board? Not that I have much >against it as long as I don't have to use it, but it's slow and >not all that user friendly. Why not use QuickBBS, TPBoard or >Opus for that matter. > >If you want to have a truly professional KOM (message based >system, has files, but concentrates on message handling) system, >there are "TCL" and "Allan's Kakburk" by two swedish authors, >these are both excellent systems. Written in C.. We looked around for a bulletin board system that met a few requirements. 1) Well Supported. 2) Supports multiple nodes over a network. 3) Has large installed user base. 4) Supports outside Doors. 5) Will work with a PAD and most modems. 6) Fast and efficient file transfer protocols. PC-Board met all of those requirements. It was easy to install in the test there are many local sysops running it to assist us with miscellaneous problems. There are a few things it is lacking though. We would like to be able to use a true e-mail system and send files with messages to an individual user. We have devised a way of doing this with some programs and the comments field but it is very awkward and requires a program to be constantly moving files around. This method is very kludgy and I would like to avoid it, but if nothing else can be found, it will have to suffice. If you can suggest another program that has the network features like PC-Board but with true E-Mail capabilities and where I can contact the authors or company, I would be very grateful. Also, has anyone heard anything about Galticomm BBS. Regards, Drew Bernstein
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (11/01/88)
In article <956@galaxy> bernstei@andromeda (Drew E Bernstein) writes: > We looked around for a bulletin board system that met a few requirements. > 1) Well Supported. > 2) Supports multiple nodes over a network. > 3) Has large installed user base. > 4) Supports outside Doors. > 5) Will work with a PAD and most modems. > 6) Fast and efficient file transfer protocols. > >PC-Board met all of those requirements. It was easy to install in the test >there are many local sysops running it to assist us with miscellaneous >problems. There are a few things it is lacking though. We would like to be >able to use a true e-mail system and send files with messages to an individual >user. We have devised a way of doing this with some programs and the comments >field but it is very awkward and requires a program to be constantly moving >files around. This method is very kludgy and I would like to avoid it, but if >nothing else can be found, it will have to suffice. If you can suggest >another program that has the network features like PC-Board but with true >E-Mail capabilities and where I can contact the authors or company, I would >be very grateful. Also, has anyone heard anything about Galticomm BBS. > Try Fido Software for Fido Version 12. Fido meets all of your requirments and the ones you were wishing for. The number is 415-764-1688. Their address is: Fido Software 164 Shipley San Francisco CA 94107. -- ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) (11/02/88)
Fido has a MUCH more difficult user interface from PC-Board. SYSOP utilities are not as nice, file storage (1 FILE PER MESSAGE!) is awful. I don't love PC_Board, but fido is not a great alternative. The one thing you can say about Fido is that it was the first to have FIDO-NET mail network and the first to support batch files. PC-Board does some pretty brain-damaged things too, but you can move around quickly in it, and it is extremely easy to set up becasue of the large collection of utilities written to run with it. The best example of this is PRO-DOOR. It lets you do FULL SCREEN editing, batch download/upload with a multitude of protocols, and is reasonable easy to use with multiple command parsing( for example, you can download a batch of files and logoff in one command, which still exits with a routine that gives you 10 seconds to change your mind after the download. A command for this would be d z file1.typ file2.typ file3.typ g download, zmodem, files (with ARC the file type is optional) goodbye. In the menu driven world of PC BBS's this is really nice. Fido does this too to a point, but the user interface is so lame that it really is un-appealing. Opus is another fido system in desguise (not much of one). The fact is that there is a great need for a new bbs system to be written that has the right features without making the user inteface so heavily menu driven that it is oppresive. The PC-Board system in the meantime is a bland,usable shell that add-on's like PRO-DOOR make into a reasonable alternative. There are some things about the authors of PC-Board that really make me wonder though. I called up Salt Air BBS to ask them why their YMODEM-G did not work with my copy of ZCOMM. They replied that ZCOMM did not support YMODEM-G. Pretty curious since Chuck Forsberg (author of ZCOMM) basically INVENTED YMODEM-G! When I confronted them on that and asked them to RENAME their MUTANT PROTOCOL to XMODEM-1K-G (more apt since it does not support filename ,date, time,size passing as listed in the YMODEM spec) they deleted my messages and acted like I was being offensive. It is appalling to me that pioneers like Chuck Forsberg go the full mile writing and FULLY DOCUMENTING protocols in files like YZMODEM.DOC (recently updated and available on Simtel20) and yet John Friel mangles the protocol in QMODEM and THAT MANGLED MUTATED protocol becomes the standard that PROCOMM, PC-BOARD and a host of others use as a standard. There are some notable exceptions to this carelessness in TELIX, and PIBTERM. Sorry about the outro flame ....
ads4@tank.uchicago.edu (adam david sah) (11/02/88)
I am a SysOp of a NON-PcBoard bbs and I have found it to be very rewarding, indeed. No, there are NOT a zillion Searchlight software bbs's in the country, but the number is growing- but that is NOT the point. The point is that I (and others) are willing to abandon a "standard" that we reject on the basis that it is NOT a very good one. Look at PCB: 1. It is slower than a drunk snail. Spitfire, Searchlight, and numerous other systems allow DRAMATIC speed increases (my users can get in and out in 5 minutes and do EVERYTHING...) 2. The user interface is laughable. "Z" for "Zippy directory scan. RIGHT! That makes PERFECT sense. 3. The file transfer system is not truly separated from the message bases, which is a matter of personal preference (but it means that you can have a whole separate set of commands to work with...) The fact is that PCB is NOT perfect- and MUCH more importantly, there are BETTER systems. Personally, I do not object to PCB, but I DO object to the notion that it is "standard" and therefore the best. Or the fact that it does something one way and therefore everyone should do that... How about some "crazy" ideas that PCB never considers... - USERS posting bulletins??? - Bulletins set up in a Scan mode (where you can get the header before you get the message... - TRUE TRUE TRUE flow control. Hit the spacebar anywhere and that message (ANY ANY ANY message) will be stopped dead in its tracks... - buffered information output so that the cpu can process msgs and wait for you to hit your next key... and there is much much more... PLEASE PLEASE no public flames for this article. I'm not interested in starting some cross-country war. If you're going to reply publicly, please let's keep it civil, and also- if you're not familiar with some of the alternatives to PCB (and I'm not talking about pseudo-alternatives, like Wildcat!), try calling some Spitfire, Searchlight, Opus, RBBS, Nochange, etc systems. Most are NOT better than PCB- I know that, but there are some systems that have some very nice things that PCB never even considers. Vested Interest Dept. Before I get really flamed for this, I had better forewarn you that a) I'm a SysOp of a non-PCBoard and paid money and devoted a lot of time to this system. b) I'm an authorizewd dealer of Searchlight software (the above non-PcBoard system) So, please take anything of mine that seems to fall under "personal opinion" as just that... Thanks for listening -A.Sah'88 SysOp, The Art of Science BBs (312)752-6104 24 hours 7 days 300-2400 baud with MNP level 5 where available and 60 megs online. Ibm and Mac friendly.
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (11/02/88)
In article <6569@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: >Fido has a MUCH more difficult user interface from PC-Board. SYSOP >utilities are not as nice, file storage (1 FILE PER MESSAGE!) is >awful. I'm not sure what PC-Board's interface is like since I have never logged on to one. Fido's interface can be modified greatly. I would not base my jugdement on Fido's interface on what you have seen out there with older (ver 11) Fido's. I would be interested in how you can improve on SYSOP (ver 12). I agree that one message/file is a bit wasteful on disk space. But is also much more flexable and it is faster in processing. >I don't love PC_Board, but fido is not a great alternative. >The one thing you can say about Fido is that it was the first to have >FIDO-NET mail network and the first to support batch files. >PC-Board does some pretty brain-damaged things too, but you can >move around quickly in it, and it is extremely easy to set up becasue >of the large collection of utilities written to run with it. The best >example of this is PRO-DOOR. It lets you do FULL SCREEN editing, >batch download/upload with a multitude of protocols, and is reasonable >easy to use with multiple command parsing( for example, you can >download a batch of files and logoff in one command, which still >exits with a routine that gives you 10 seconds to change your mind >after the download. No difference here either. You have had the ability to run "outside" programmes since ver 11. And fido has supported one line chained commands since ver 11 too. I admit there can be improvments to Fido in its interface. I am trying to say, don't discount Fido until you look at the ver12 manual or talk to some one that is running one. It may have everything that you need... -- ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) (11/02/88)
One of the things I did not like about FIDO was having to change modes so much. If you are reading files, you had to hit m m f f to list files. In PC-Board you just type N S U from an prompt for New Since Uploadarea. Perhaps they have fixed this in version 12 of fido, but I really did not like it that the meaning of the letters changed so much depending on where you were in the program. Did they improve this? Where can I call a PUBLIC ACCESS Fido running the new version?
pete@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peter Franks) (11/03/88)
In article <6569@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: >Fido has a MUCH more difficult user interface from PC-Board. SYSOP >utilities are not as nice, file storage (1 FILE PER MESSAGE!) is awful. >I don't love PC_Board, but fido is not a great alternative. > . . . >The fact is that there is a great need for a new bbs system >to be written that has the right features without making the user >inteface so heavily menu driven that it is oppresive. You should try the AKCS bbs package - it runs under UNIX (and is therefore automagically multi-user), is VERY easy to use. It can be linked to other bbs's and to USENET. It does all sorts of neat things. Call MCS at (312) 566-8910 for complete info. (It's priced reasonably, too.) The usual disclaimer - I am not associated with MCS in any way except as an extremely satisfied customer/user. -- Remember: No matter how obnoxious it gets, you CANNOT execute a device!
guardian@otishq.UUCP (Harry Skelton) (11/04/88)
In article <2054@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, pete@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peter Franks) writes: > In article <6569@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: > (It's priced reasonably, too.) Too many BBS software packages are "Priced". I agree that shareware should exist but when there is a freedom of information exchange, I feel that the software should be too. This is one of the main reasons I like USENET rather than some BBS software. (Yes dear readers, USENET is being ported to DOS (as all the guru's squeel in terror). I'll post it as soon as I get the UUCP end of it done.) -- ______ guardian@otishq _ _ (Via: daitc obdient ddsw1 killer novavax ) / ____/ __ _ ___ ___ _| ||_| ___ _ __ Harry "Highspeed" Skelton | |__ || | |/ . || .-'/ . || |/ . || '_ \ AAA National Head Quarters \_____/ |____|\__|||_| \___||_|\__|||_| |_| Falls Church, Virginia USA
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (11/05/88)
In article <109@otishq.UUCP> guardian@otishq.UUCP (Harry Skelton) writes: >(Yes dear readers, USENET is being ported to DOS (as all the guru's squeel in >terror). I'll post it as soon as I get the UUCP end of it done.) > Uh gee, it's already been done by me and several others.... Tim -- ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/05/88)
In article <109@otishq.UUCP> guardian@otishq.UUCP (Harry Skelton) writes: >In article <2054@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, pete@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peter Franks) writes: >> In article <6569@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: >> (It's priced reasonably, too.) > >Too many BBS software packages are "Priced". I agree that shareware should >exist but when there is a freedom of information exchange, I feel that the >software should be too. This is one of the main reasons I like USENET rather >than some BBS software. But Usenet, for all it's greatness, costs you money (and I mean REAL money) to operate. Regardless of whether you pay for the transport of the material or the software used by it (or both), you do pay to do this (or to run a bbs). What's the big difference between handing money monthly to the big bad telephone company, and handing it once (or annually, or whatever) to someone else who provides a useful product/service? >(Yes dear readers, USENET is being ported to DOS (as all the guru's squeel in >terror). I'll post it as soon as I get the UUCP end of it done.) Too many bbs software packages? Can I ask you what you do when you need to fix some piece of the news software? When it breaks (as with the runaway articles not long ago)? Or when a feature you'd really like just isn't there? Why, you get to fix/enhance it yourself! And we all know how much fun mucking around inside of inews is! 1/2 :-) Now, the people who sell this bbs/conferencing software are willing to do this maintenance and enhancement work for you.... for a price. I guess if your time is free (and worthless), then the decision is easy -- you go with the package that's out there, free, and works most of the time. But what if you don't like that product's features/misfeatures? What if you want more? What if you want someone to yell at when it breaks, someone who will fix it and quick? Well, I guess you can either write it yourself, or pay someone else to (or pay for someone else's solution that's already written). The Usenet software is not bad, for what it is. But it's not a bbs -- it contains no access control, no security, nothing but the interface to the net itself. _Everything_ else you get to add yourself. -- 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"
jkingdon@chinet.chi.il.us (James Kingdon) (11/05/88)
In article <2069@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >The Usenet software is not bad, for what it is. But it's not a bbs -- it >contains no access control, no security, nothing but the interface to the >net itself. _Everything_ else you get to add yourself. As a matter of terminology, inews, etc. is known as the B news software (well, there's C news, a derivation of B news). Usenet is a group of sites exchanging mail (some of which use notes, AKCS, etc. instead of B news). And of course you could use B news without interfacing your system to any other sites, if you wanted to. B news does contain some access control. Compile news with FASCIST defined and you can make a list of users who should not have access. Recent version also have COMMUNIST which lets you make a list of who should have access. (I hate these names, but I didn't invent them). I don't really know how flexible these are compared with other bbs's. With UNIX, security is provided by the operating system. I don't know what ports to operating systems lacking security provisions have done about this. And if by "interface to the net itself" you mean to exclude "user interface" in my humble opinion rn beats the socks off any other bbs program I've used. It's hard to learn, but easy to use once you learn it (although certainly not perfect). Other programs like vn that work with B news and which are public domain are intended to be less intimidating. Commercial vs. public domain is another issue; I can see reasons for or against using public domain bbs's.
mju@m-net.UUCP (Marc Unangst) (11/07/88)
In article <109@otishq.UUCP> guardian@otishq.UUCP (Harry Skelton) writes: >(Yes dear readers, USENET is being ported to DOS (as all the guru's squeel in >terror). I'll post it as soon as I get the UUCP end of it done.) Do you have the news batcher/unbatcher and newsreader read yet? If so please post it/mail it to me as soon as you can! The current UUPC package can handle mail (I think), and even if it can't, you may be able to use some code from it (check with them first). I'm eager to be able to read news on my PC, as doing it on this computer is S L O W. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Don't find a fault. | Marc Unangst | | Find a remedy." | mju@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us ...!uunet!umix!m-net!mju | | -Henry Ford | |
root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) (11/13/88)
In article <2069@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <109@otishq.UUCP> guardian@otishq.UUCP (Harry Skelton) writes: >>In article <2054@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, pete@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peter Franks) writes: >>> In article <6569@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: >>> (It's priced reasonably, too.) >> >>Too many BBS software packages are "Priced". I agree that shareware should >I guess if your time is free (and worthless), then the decision >is easy -- you go with the package that's out there, free, and works most of >the time. > >But what if you don't like that product's features/misfeatures? What if you >want more? If you are running XBBS, you just add the features yourself. The source code has been placed in the public domain by the author. With source code, you can modify it any way you like. >What if you want someone to yell at when it breaks, someone who >will fix it and quick? What if you'd rather fix it yourself, so that it is done right and you don't have to wait on someone else to get around to doing the work for you? There is _no_ substitute for having the source code. >Well, I guess you can either write it yourself, or pay someone else to (or >pay for someone else's solution that's already written). Or, you can get XBBS. It's free. It runs under Sys V. With an obect-only BBS, you never know if the author has put a backdoor into the code or not. Source code is the only way to go. -- 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
wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (11/14/88)
In article <2485@m2-net.UUCP> mju@m-net.UUCP (Marc Unangst) writes: |In article <109@otishq.UUCP> guardian@otishq.UUCP (Harry Skelton) writes: |>(Yes dear readers, USENET is being ported to DOS (as all the guru's squeel in |>terror). I'll post it as soon as I get the UUCP end of it done.) | |Do you have the news batcher/unbatcher and newsreader read yet? If |so please post it/mail it to me as soon as you can! The current |UUPC package can handle mail (I think), and even if it can't, you |may be able to use some code from it (check with them first). I'm |eager to be able to read news on my PC, as doing it on this computer |is S L O W. Why not try setting up a FidoNet point system under a system running the UFGATE software (completely working, and well working, software). Or even set up the point software, and run UFGATE yourself. Bill -- Bitnet: wcf@psuhcx.bitnet Bill Fenner | "Ain't got no cash, Internet: wcf@hcx.psu.edu | Ain't got no style UUCP: {gatech,rutgers}!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf | Ain't got no girls Fido: Sysop at 263/42 (814/238 9633) \hogbbs!wcf| To make me smile"
jeff@tekcsc.MKT.TEK.COM (Jeff Beadles) (11/16/88)
Well, I am finally lowering myself to a medium level flame. Please use 'n' if you don't want to read it... In article <12409@conexch.UUCP> root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes: >In article <2069@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>Well, I guess you can either write it yourself, or pay someone else to (or >>pay for someone else's solution that's already written). > >Or, you can get XBBS. It's free. It runs under Sys V. >With an obect-only BBS, you never know if the author has put a backdoor ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >into the code or not. Source code is the only way to go. [Flame on] Ack, give me a break. If checking for backdoor's is your persuading factor, then try again. How many other programs do you run without having the source? (Do you have a Unix source license?) True, the net did just have a {virus,worm,insert apropos phrase here} problem. There still should be some sort of implicit trust between the user/owner, and the vendor. When someone buys a program, then it's my opinion that it's the integrity of the vendor to not to intstall trap doors, or trojan horses. By the way, do you know of any object-only BBS programs that are in the public domain? I can't think of any. [flame off] -- Jeff Beadles IDG Customer Support Center Tektronix, Inc. jeff@tekcsc.mkt.tek.com -or- POB 1000 ..!tektronix!tekcsc.mkt.tek.com!jeff Wilsonville, OR. 97070 MS 63-171