From: messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk)
Subject: Re: Coherent - the ultimate BBS in itself?
Organization: Messina Software
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:18:36 GMT


First of all, thanks for the excellent points made in the two articles
below and a great feedback I got through email.  Now to the articles:

root@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca (Superuser)
>system@micromed.com (Duane Davis) writes:
>> messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>>> [argues that Coherent in itself is an excellent BBS platform]
>>
>>    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?

Hm.  That may be, but explain why a BBS from which I am posting now
has (at least to my estimates) the highest number of users of any
single BBS in Silicon Valley?  It is shell based, SUN OS 4.1.3.  Yes,
it does provide Internet access, email and news, but the point is, the
complexity of the interface is not a sufficient detriment (to me it's
easier than many annoying menu-based system, but that aside).  I
believe it is possible to address different group of people
("socializers" - as they're called later on) using command line with
slightly customized prompts, commands and help files.  It does require
some modifications to the system as installed, but that I take for
granted, as I stated in the original posts when I mentioned ksh
functions and simple programs intended to make the BBS user's life a
little easier.

>>    How are you going to handle ANSI color, or IBM extended keyboard
>>    characters, or users that are using terminals that aren't 80x25.

I don't think I will.  At least it would be a low priority for me.  I
always turned those options (color and so on) off immediately after
logging on to the BBS since I found them slow and annoying.

>>    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.

That is of course an error on the part of the Sysop and not the OS.
It is possible to "lock" the user into the shell as you desire.  It
requires some ingenuity, but I believe it can be done.

>> 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.

Menu file should be accessible, no doubt about it.  It is, however,
incredibly slow having to go through menu display any time you do
anything.  And it is terribly annoying not being able to give *a*
command from one prompt, but having instead to jump through various
menu levels to reach that command. 

>> 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.

You certainly have a great advantage of experience over me, and I am
taking your advice seriously.

> 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.

I would repeat what I said about netcom.  It doesn't seem that the
complexity alone is a sufficient detriment if the benefit is clear.

> 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.

Do you know what the underlying OS is?

> 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.

Interesting point.  I think it should be possible with some little
trickery, but I will first try it and then will mouth off.

> 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.

These are interesting points partly because they are so foreign to me
as a BBS user (and not a Sysop).  I never looked for files on BBSs and
couldn't care less if the BBS had any at all.  The best BBSs I found
were either "social" in nature, or programmer's BBSs with programming
challenges and projects.  The only files that were posted and
available for download were sources for the project or challenge.

> 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.

I don't think I would even offer access to it because of the system
resources that would be tied up.  There are BBS specializing in that,
and they would be a better place for that.

> 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.

I see no contradiction here.  The Coherent system can be set up
exactly that way - to limit access to unnecessary executables and
to provide needed services.

> 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.

I don't see the need for offering $ prompt on the BBS.  The prompt can
be modified to displayed useful information.  Again, shell can be
restricted.

> 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.

Yes, and I do not think I would be catering to those in terms of
providing them with a platform for experimenting with Coherent.  As I
said originally, Coherent would be a platform for a BBS, whatever the
BBS's nature would be.  It doesn't necessarily imply that it would be
an open shell.

> Your Truly,
> Randy Wright

Thanks for all your great input.

t.
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Tcl to replacement most of /bin & /usr/bin (was: Tcl on Linux