NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/os/coherent/5805

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 6.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!uw-coco!mdisea!mdivax1!van-bc!rwsys!root
From: [e-mail] (Superuser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Coherent - the ultimate BBS in itself?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:57:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: RWSYS Exporter BBS system
Lines: 110

[e-mail] (Duane Davis) writes:
> [e-mail] (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>
> > I've read the posts regarding BBS software for Coherent with great
> > interest since I would like to set up one also.  It struck me,
> > however, that most posts seemed to suggest a DOS BBS model ported to
> > unix platform, which to me would be a step back.  After thinking about
> > it for a sec I realized that unix offers a superior model for BBS just
> > in itself, simply by implementing tools that are already there.  With
>
> There are a few problems with your reasoning...
>
>    Although the Coherent (or any unix) environment is much more power-
>    full and flexible that a DOS BBS, it also takes alot longer to learn.
>    Most BBS users are used to simple to use DOS BBS' and don't want to
>    have to "learn" how to use something new. With as many simple BBS'
>    available why should they hassle with it?
>
>    How are you going to handle ANSI color, or IBM extended keyboard
>    characters, or users that are using terminals that aren't 80x25.
>
>    You also take a chance of creating a security hole. With a BBS
>    program your user is "locked" into a program. Suppose you make
>    a mistake and assign the wrong permissions to a file, or a user
>    not understanding permissions creates a file and someone else
>    deletes it.
>
> The whole idea of writing a menu based BBS program is to make it
> easy to use. The faster a user can login, do what they need to do,
> and logoff, the better. If you make it too difficult they will call
> elsewhere.
>
> I've been running a BBS for almost 10 years now (7 years running a
> DOS BBS) so I pretty much know what users like. If I were to run
> something like you suggest I would loose at least 90% of my users.
> ---
> [e-mail] (Duane Davis)                   voice [phone]
> Micro-Medic                          public access usenet [phone]
> 711 Lincoln Avenue                  public access pcboard [phone]
> San Jose, CA 95126                    FileServer - [e-mail]
>
As Tony suggests, it seems ludicrous to put a simple face on a
coherent box and restrict users to a menu based system as though
they were kindergarten kids. Especially when we all know how powerful
the system can be.

I've been doing a lot of research on this matter of what makes
a good BBS. I've been running one, writing one and helping out on some
local commercial operations.

I agree with Duane. So does the literature on running a BBS. In
fact, the profile of a typical BBS'er doesn't reflect the kind of
person who likes to master computing power. It appears that the largest
group of BBS users are socializers rather than computer whizes.

But that need to socialize is precisely why a multiuser system is
important. To attract those users, a BBS need to offer them each other.
This is done with mail, news, conferences and perhaps entertainment. A
multi-user enviornemnt is superior for those who wish socialize.

The most sucessful of the BBS's in my town runs picnics, sells tee
shirts and has a number of on-line real time conferences. They run
over thirty phone lines on a single 486. This allows users to chat,
conference etc.. in great ease. The system is operated by a very
capable team of computer whizzes. While coherent offers the abilty
for users to 'who' or 'write' each other, it doesn't offer real time
coferences where users can 'meet' each other.

This isn't to say that a BBS should have only social stuff. Many people
are first attracted to BBS's because of the downloads.. then they
discover news, then mail... And even the long time BBS 'customer' who
can't find a particular file here, will look elsewhere. Coherent
doesn't offer an 'out-of-box' download library or downloads manager.

Your BBS'er probably isn't going to demand access to yacc or the
compiler or any of the many fine tools that coherent offers. The
editors are probably too complex and they will probably never
ask to nroff a file. Even UUCP is probably more effort than most
people are willing to expend. And that fabulous assembler.. well.
Really, coherent looks more like a 'development enviornment' than
a BBS.

There are business BBS systems which have a need to offer
information and process transactions. But then, a business BBS has
even more need for a user interface that requires no learning.

In both of these cases a good menu interface is vital. The 'power-user'
will need to be able cut through to his/her commands without a bunch
of screens, but even they rarely need more than a few hundred commands
to choose from. The BBS I've been coding offers each user up to 900
different commands that the sysop can 'hand-pick' so as to prevent
damage as well as to give the user the command syntax in an off-the
shelf sort of way.

You can certainly offer 'shell' accounts to trusted BBS'ers, even as
an option on their menu. But most users panic at the $ prompt and have
no idea what is there. There ARE computer oriented BBS users, but this
is a tiny niche in the vastness, and for them.. (or should I say us)
they would probably perfere to own their own coherent and perhaps
run their own BBS.

Your Truly,
Randy Wright

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[e-mail] (Randy Wright)      | Exporter BBS     2400 bps
                or                          | [phone]     8N1
    [e-mail]             | uucp         ogin: uguest
                                            | interactive login: guest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~