From: ppg@oasis.icl.co.uk (Philippe Goujard)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Nixpub meaning
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:39:41 GMT
Organization: ICL, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 4SN, UK

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>While "Open Access" implies that shell accounts are available, 

I dunno where you get the word "open" from. I didnt speak about "open access"
and I just had a look in the nixpub posting, nowhere phil mention "open".
"Open" is a delicate word that has loads of meanings.
Do you define open as opposed to "proprietary" (like in "open systems",
whatever that means :-) ) or as opposed to "close" (like closing the services
to a certain group of users) ?

Anyway, the word used was "public" and it doesnt implies at all having a
shell access. (Or at least this is the way I see it :-) since "public"
seems to raise nearly as amny arguments as "open" :-) ).
Public is opposed to private : i.e a site where everybody can connect to and
which is not reserved to member of a company or a certain user group or
club or association.

But besides that, yes I see your point and I agree with you (geez! I guess
I could be a politician :-) )

>not every
>site is willing to give shell accounts out freely. Therefore, most systems
>generally have a BBS interface which users can interact with. Shell access
>is usually restricted for those personally contacted by the Sysop, etc.,
>due to various security problems.

That is right. Some sites do not want to give shell access at all or only
to people they trust (and I've seen in some sites which are giving shell
access the following banner "YES Crashme is crashing this system very badly,
please do not run it").

>Furthermore, examination of the list shows sites with the statement
>"No shell". Since these sites are simply BBS's on a UNIX platform, if
>they were running Waffle, how would they differ?

Beats me! Never seen Waffle on Unix. I've seen Waffle on dos however and I
can say that the interface is... erm... disconcerting. 
If I understand correctly what you are saying is :
  If I can have with Waffle (or whatever utilies over DOS) the same services
  and the same user interface as what is provided on some sites in the
  nixpub list, why wouldnt my site appear in the list?

Well, I dont know, I would suppose that if the user cannot make the difference
it is maybe not worth keeping the site in the list. Or on the other hand it
might be difficult or pointless to copy the unix "look & feel".(if such a
thing exist).



>>It is NOT intended primary as a list of sites who provide usenet access
>>(and indeed some sites in the list only provide shell access or anon UUCP).

>This very statement invalidates your above claim. What good is anonymous
>UUCP for someone interested "unix systems and looking for a site nearby
>where they can learn more"?

I give you one example:
When I was not the Unix Guru you have in front of you :-), I was learning
how to use and to configure my UUCP.
And indeed I used the NixPub list for there was a site in france called
GNA which was only provinding anon uucp. It was exactly what I wanted and
with a little help from friends I managed to set-up my uucp link correctly.

>To many users, USENET and Internet-addressable e-mail is *exactly* what
>they are looking for. UNIX capabilities are an aftertought.

Well, yes maybe now since usenet is general and even internet begins to appear
outside the north american continent. But I remember a time not too far away
when people wanted to set-up their unix machine or download a couple of
files from anon uucp and looked at the Nixpub list for that main purpose.

I suppose now a list of site providing email and news regardless of the
operating system might be popular, but it doesnt mean this list should
replace the NixPub list.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe GOUJARD                              Email : ppg@oasis.icl.co.uk
Xref: sparky alt.bbs:5535 comp.bbs.misc:787 comp.misc:3439