🚀 go-pugleaf

borcelf@coil.cs.orst.edu (Fernando Borcel) writes:
>1.  What features do you consider STANDARD in a BBS? (eg transfer protocols,
>    networking capabilities, etc).
>2.  What would you like to see in a BBS? (i.e. non standard features)
>3.  What do you really hate about your BBS?
>4.  Anything you want to add.

>Please EMAIL me your answer!

Let the last come first - I tried to EMail you but it ended right back
between my ears - so here your (anybody) are! Paul Gillingwater
(Reference: <28@csnz.nz>) responded in the mean time, so I'll only add
some comments to his original posting.

I'm an sysop on a Opus v1.03b BBS and I'm quite happy with it but I
couldn't stop thinking that something maybe needed changing so I wrote
a letter about one month ago asking for ideas for WBBS (Worlds best
bulletin board system) and most of Gillingwater's points match with
the answer's I got, but! Opus can handle all the thing in
Gillingwater's letter except from Dial-back and resident in the
background (that need to much CPU-power to work!). Multiuser works ok!
But there is one thing he forgot - how the user and especially the
sysop have to communicate with the system. The Opus concept with
menues works very well but that's only because it is implemented so
well: You can have menues with 3 different help-level
          - The keyword with the whole word (ex: F)iles)
          - Only the keyword
          - Nothing
And you don't have to enter a letter and wait for the next menu, you
can enter a whole lot of keywords and then press return. The only
thing that happens (on the screen) is the apperance of the final menu
= easy for the new user and ease for the experiend user!

   Leif Andrew Rump, Ambrasoft A/S, Roejelskaer 15, DK-2840 Holte (Denmark)
         UUCP: leif@ambush.dk, phone: +45 2424 111 - ABC BBS: +45 68 00 544

   "...with a liquid which was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."
                    - The Hitch hicker's Guide to the Galaxy