🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec30.211530.28662@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> knight@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Knight Before Christmas) writes:

>First of all, thank you for giving me a valid answer to the question.
>Ultimately, I might have to take the path you suggest, but...

>Okay, maybe I should have been a bit more specific.  I happened to see a
>version of Wildcat! at the Software Etc in Pueblo, CO. but I'm not likely
>to spend $179 for Desqview and $125 for proprietary BBS software that is
>nearly impossible to modify.  The reason I liked Maximus is because it
>came with full C source code, and the author didn't charge a cent for 
>letting a non-commercial user run the software.

Someone told me that source code for Maximus 2.0 wasn't being
distributed the way that earlier versions were.  Note, however, that I
haven't tried to contact the author or check this out for myself.  It
is, however, still free for non-commercial use.

>I'm not beyond shelling out $50 or so for a BBS program, or even $75 if
>there is source code included.  That seems reasonable to me, and since
>there are many other BBS programs on the Internet that have $50-$75
>registration fees, I'm more likely to go with them.

>Anyway, I should rephrase the question to something along the lines of
>"low cost" or "cheap" BBS software that is compatible with Microsoft
>Windows 3.1 in enhanced mode.  If I can't find one, I'll stick with
>Maximus if I can find the source code for 2.00+. (If anyone knows where
>the source code is, preferably on the Internet, please let me know.)  

I'd be interested, as well.  I have a modem that the Maximus front end
won't work with (it's just slightly non-standard in what it returns)
and I'd like to fix that (until I buy another high-speed modem).  As I
said, someone told me that source was no longer freely available, but
I haven't made any concerted effort to get it yet.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

In article <1992Dec30.211530.28662@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, knight@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Knight Before Christmas) writes:
|> Although Desqview is very good with telecommunications, it really is 
|> hard to use with packages such as Borland C++ IDE and such.  Admittably,
|> I'm not so hard pressed to use the BBS computer these days since I
|> got the new machine, but the 486-50 is a household favorite and my 33-386
|> never gets used (it also has the 180 watt stereo and 15" loudspeakers
|> on it -- you haven't lived if you don't have a soundcard.)
|> 

I use Borland C++ 3.0 all the time under Desqview. All I needed was the DPMI
host driver (free from Quarterdeck), and a fix to BC3 that borland came out 
with (obtained from their support BBS). Admittedly, it's not the kind of 
solution that jumps out and bites you, but all I did was exercise the normal
support channels.

(but enough of this hard-sell... you asked for Windows, not Desqview, so 
I'll shut up :-)

|> Anyway, I should rephrase the question to something along the lines of
|> "low cost" or "cheap" BBS software that is compatible with Microsoft
|> Windows 3.1 in enhanced mode.  If I can't find one, I'll stick with
|> Maximus if I can find the source code for 2.00+. (If anyone knows where
|> the source code is, preferably on the Internet, please let me know.)  
|> 

I have also seen a BBS package called XBBS, which I have heard works under
windows as all, and it also is free with full C source available. I 
believe a copy of it is available on either Garbo or Simtel20. I have an 
older release of it on my BBS at home, so I can probably get the authors'
BBS number from it if you like...
Good luck,
Kevin


Kevin Brokaw   (kevinb@csd.sgi.com)     | 
Product support engineer                | Sorry, this closet is for anxieties.
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems       | Pipe dreams are under the bed. 
(Forgive them,they know not what I post)| 

In article <1992Dec30.211530.28662@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> knight@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Knight Before Christmas) writes:
> >|> I am basically looking for some BBS package that runs CORRECTLY under
> >|> MS Windows 3.1 enhanced mode.  I'd prefer to use Maximus BBS, which I
> >|> am most impressed with, but it only works under standard mode.
> 
> > While I was waiting for a firmware upgrade to a new harddrive controller
> > which didn't like QEMM/Desqview, I ran my Wildcat 3.55P BBS (2 nodes) under
> > Windows 3.1 for a while (one local node, one com port locked at 19200 with
> > a V32bis modem, and a BinkleyTerm mailer frontend). While I can't say I 
> > particularly loved the speed of the sessions (I was, after all, running 
> > on only a 386DX-20), It was an acceptable stop-gap until I could run Desqview
> > again. Frankly, I'd recommend Desqview, as it's friendlier to comm-intensive
> > applications, and you can run Windows (albeit in standard mode... never tried
> > it in enhanced mode) from within a Desqview session). 
> 
> Although Desqview is very good with telecommunications, it really is 
> hard to use with packages such as Borland C++ IDE and such.  Admittably,
> I'm not so hard pressed to use the BBS computer these days since I
> got the new machine, but the 486-50 is a household favorite and my 33-386
> never gets used (it also has the 180 watt stereo and 15" loudspeakers
> on it -- you haven't lived if you don't have a soundcard.)

OS/2 v2.x is an excellent platform for what Kevin is trying to do. There is an
OS/2 version of Maximus that does the job very well.
 
You would need at least 6 megs with OS/2 v2.0.......though the upcoming V2.1
runs better in less memory. I have the beta for OS/2 2.1 running pretty well
on a 386DX/25 with 4 meg of RAM on a PC at work. 
 
There are several BBS's here in Wellington running Maximus on OS/2. The nice
part about is the vastly superior multi-tasking of OS/2 over Windows. This
shows especially when dealing with modems and comms programs. DOS comms run OK
under OS/2 but native OS/2 programs are definitly superior to anything around
for smooth multi-tasking - like Maximus for OS/2. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |    -cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | 

On a related note:

hasn't anyone come up with a (ms) windows-based windowing
protocol yet? so that we could run bbs's with windowing
interfaces?

I've seen America Online's nifty GEOS front-end, as well 
as some X-windows front ends, but nothing for windows.


do we have to do it ourselves?

best,
dk
-- 
-- ISC Consultants      Technical Training & Consulting Since 1973
-- 
-- Tel: 212-477-8800	Email: isc@panix.com
-- Fax: 212-477-9895    Snail: 14 E 4 ST, STE 602, NYC 10012-1141

I'm not sure that I understand your requirements. I run a Waffle BBS under
Windows 3.1 as a standard DOS application. Any package should be able to
run in enhanced mode that way. If your asking for a Windows compliant 
package, then I can't help.

For Waffle however there is a local, windows based news reading program
that works (only on the local console) very well. (called helldiver)

My 386/4mb BBS normally runs two-three waffle sessions. One is monitoring
the phone line and acting as a BBS. The second is simply running all of the
background administrative tasks (news batching, etc.) And, when I want
to login, I start a third MS-DOS session to login locally.

Bob
-- 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>     \|/     <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
Bob Van Cleef		        --0--        revc@garg.Campbell.CA.US
The Land of Garg BBS     	 /|\		   BBS (408) 378-5108
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>      |      <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><

In <1993Jan1.120522.28801@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:


>OS/2 v2.x is an excellent platform for what Kevin is trying to do. There is an
>OS/2 version of Maximus that does the job very well.
> 
>You would need at least 6 megs with OS/2 v2.0.......though the upcoming V2.1
>runs better in less memory. I have the beta for OS/2 2.1 running pretty well
>on a 386DX/25 with 4 meg of RAM on a PC at work. 
> 
>There are several BBS's here in Wellington running Maximus on OS/2. The nice
>part about is the vastly superior multi-tasking of OS/2 over Windows. This
>shows especially when dealing with modems and comms programs. DOS comms run OK
>under OS/2 but native OS/2 programs are definitly superior to anything around
>for smooth multi-tasking - like Maximus for OS/2. 

Note that this does, however, have the problem of not allowing the use
of most 'doors' (which are written to run on DOS) or of a lot of the
Opus-compatible utilities that Maximus on DOS should be able to run.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

In <C0Asys.5C0@panix.com> isc@panix.com (David Koosis) writes:

>On a related note:

>hasn't anyone come up with a (ms) windows-based windowing
>protocol yet? so that we could run bbs's with windowing
>interfaces?

>I've seen America Online's nifty GEOS front-end, as well 
>as some X-windows front ends, but nothing for windows.


>do we have to do it ourselves?

Probably, and I would expect it to be DOG SLOW running over anything
less than a V.32bis connection.  Of course, X has this problem, too.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

In <1993Jan4.165959.11691@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <C0Asys.5C0@panix.com> isc@panix.com (David Koosis) writes:

>>hasn't anyone come up with a (ms) windows-based windowing
>>protocol yet? so that we could run bbs's with windowing
>>interfaces?
...
>>do we have to do it ourselves?

>Probably, and I would expect it to be DOG SLOW running over anything
>less than a V.32bis connection.  Of course, X has this problem, too.

I'm not so sure it would have to be dog slow.
I think a version of the 80/20 (or even 95/5) rule applies:
80% of user activity will fall into 20% of the possible domain.
If you optimize that 20% (by downloading data, commonly used dialogs, 
etc. to the client side) then performance might actually be *better*
than one finds on the conventional tty interface.

If the protocol allows for bi-directional communication, you
could even download the diff of the the server file list (for example)
while the user decides which key to press next.  Then when the
user lists files -- presto! -- it's there.

- david
-- 
-- ISC Consultants      Technical Training & Consulting Since 1973
-- 
-- Tel: 212-477-8800	Email: isc@panix.com
-- Fax: 212-477-9895    Snail: 14 E 4 ST, STE 602, NYC 10012-1141