From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Sad to say...
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 23:14:58 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane) writes:

> >David, I've been thinking that we need an alt.religion.bbs group or somethin
> >to attempt to remove some of the attitude that concerns you.  Jeez, we've ev
> >got a *nix clone flame war going on here!
>
> Who could help but notice :-) I think this ties to your comment
> below that the purely local bbs (one line, one program under single
> tasking OS, no shell, etc., etc.) is in relative decline.

This is quite true.  My system is a good example of that decline.  I started
this BBS as a small, alias-based system running RBBS on my old original Compaq.
I got bit by the fidonet bug before usenet, and local stuff declined from that
day forward.  I don't know if I really mourn the loss too much, but it's
definitely different.  I also feel the need to grow past the single line, DOS
system I've got now, because processing news under DOS keeps the system down
for just two long.  It's time to take this box (a 386/16dx) and put one flavor
of *nix or another here.

>
> >On to your philosophy regarding BBSs:  I agree with it essentially.  One thi
> >I've noticed over the years, however, is the slow decline of the local bbs.
> >our efforts to network our systems, we have offered users so many options
> >beyond the local that we're just a local node on the net.
>
> In the beginning, the metaphor was a "host" which people connected
> to somewhat like they would go to a party. If they wanted to go to
> another party, they connected to another host. Expanding in that
> direction, lines were added that allowed more people to
> simultaneously attend the party. Expanding in another direction,
> hosts began to be connected to each other.
>
> IMHO, the first kind of expansion doesn't require a change of
> metaphor. But if you don't change the metaphor for a host connected
> to others, then it becomes "just" a node on the net which somehow
> sounds a bit down in the mouth, like maybe the party isn't so
> clearly defined as such.
>

Oh, I think the 'party' is pretty well defined, in terms of netnews groups.
The catch is that netnews has grown into such a large party that it's really
easy to join in.  Being 'just' a node on the net sounds bad, because it tends
to imply that there's nothing original about my system, but I'm still pleased
to offer the service to others.

> Coming from a totally different direction is the metaphor of virtual
> networks. And this metaphor doesn't really follow from the host-node
> metaphor but requires orthogonal change. That is, it's not "more of
> the same" but "something completely different."
>
> >I agree with the concept of a free BBS, in all that implies.  If I can't aff
> >a feature (like another line), I'm not going to add it.  I'm not even really
> >interested in donations to the system.  I normally tell users to make a
> >contribution to the local university that is my netnews feed.
>
> IMHO, the "free BBS" (usually meaning somebody else pays :) is part
> of what I think of as the Virtual Net. While it may not have dial-up
> or hard machine<->machine links, it's connected via face-to-face,
> voice-tel, fax, postal-service, private-delivery-service, bank-transfers,
> VISA-transfers, and so on.

I can remember a time when this was quite so, at least down here.  Serious BBS
users would jump from one system to another nightly, almost simultaneously
disconnecting from one and dialing up another.  The net was the people, and
it's main links were voice/face-to-face (mostly late at night at Denny's) and
via 'general' boards on the various BBSs.  When Fidonet caught on big down
here, citywide echos replaced that 'virtual' net with something a bit more
concrete.

>
> >Maybe your article will spark some discussion beyond whether or not Coherent
> >is/is not Unix and whether or not it sucks.
>
> Maybe. But it seems clear enough there are differing intents operating.
>
> On one hand there's discussion about how to upgrade the definition
> of "*UNIX" based upon a changed sitauation. On the other there are
> the die-hards who are doing their best to maintain old positions of
> power at any cost. While they make obstruct things temporarily there
> is no way the winds of fate can be stopped: the more solid the
> postion, the easier it is to work around. :-)
>

I'm in the camp for re-thinking the definition.  Time was when it really was
nasty to try to connect a DOS machine to the net.  Now it's as smooth as any
other platform.  I'm public-access Usenet here in New Orleans, but I'm not
public-access Unix, because I don't run anything close to Unix (at least at the
moment).  It poses an interesting dilemma.  If you're looking for a way to send
mail and read news down here, I'm a good resource.  I even provide free feeds
for other sites.  Am I *nix?  No, and I agree that I shouldn't be listed as
such.  Yet, I'm one less resource that the public will really know about...



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.bbs