Welcome to RBBS-PC Conference But first, an editorial...... RBBS-PC and it's source code is distributed under the "Userware" concept. RBBS-PC is "...the sure and present proof that software which is shared becomes better than it was." RBBS-PC and the distribution of RBBS-PC's source code is an act of faith not only in users but in the concept of "users helping users." RBBS-PC's open architecture has always encouraged users to modify RBBS-PC to meet their own requirements. Further, RBBS-PC has also encouraged users to share their modifications via .MRG files to RBBS-PC in the finest tradition of "users helping users." RBBS-PC's open architecture even allows for those who want to write RBBS-PC "utilities" or "clones" providing that they observe both RBBS-PC's copyright and the limited license under which RBBS-PC is distriubted (i.e. they don't steal the RBBS-PC source code or parts of the RBBS-PC source code and put it in their product). RBBS-PC has become the defacto "industry standard" for PC-based bulletin board systems. Many products exist that have incorporated the "RBBS-PC standard" within themselves without violating or stealing RBBS-PC's source code. Products such as these (that really are the work of their authors!), deserve to be encouraged and their authors rewarded for their efforts. These products' originality can be easily determined because they all have at least one of the following two characteristics: 1.) they are written in another language (i.e. not BASIC!) or 2.) they have an internal file structure and logic that is entirely different from RBBS-PC's. However if someone offers you a bulletin board software package for the IBM or IBM-compatable PC which has the following characteristics: 1.) it is offered without source code; 2.) it is written in BASIC (i.e. gives BASIC's error codes); 3.) it appears to have almost the same internal logic/flow and/or external file structure as RBBS-PC; ask yourself why they want you to be an accomplice in destroying the "user helping user" concept that RBBS-PC is based on? Is this some sort of "bait and switch" approach wherein they will later start demanding that you pay them for future versions or help? If the perpetrators either won't, can't, or don't provide you with their "products" source code -- ask yourself why? These type of "RBBS-PC clones" soil themselves and their advocates while victimizing those who are associated with them. Tom Mack Msg # 5700 Dated 03-26-86 17:26:40 From: JERRY SHIFRIN To: SYSOP Re: EDITORIAL After reading your editorial, I read thru the entire message BBS, expecting to see a lively discussion. Not ONE message! Well now, I'm out of time, but will call back to discuss. Msg # 5702 Dated 03-27-86 02:15:23 From: JERRY SHIFRIN To: SYSOP Re: EDITORIAL As the SYSOP of a PCBoard based system, I can't help but believe that your editorial is directed at least partly at people like me. Since I object to being referred to as an accomplice in some nefarious scheme to destroy the users helping users philosophy, I'd like to reply to a couple of points. 1. My reading of the PCBoard documentation, is that it is in part modelled on the RBBS command structure, in order to simplify the use of the systems by the large number of people used to RBBS. To me, that does not mean that RBBS was plagiarized. I hope you don't think that every program using windows is a rip-off of Smalltalk. 2. I understand that PCBoard has been totally rewritten from since its original release - this makes it unlikely to be using any RBBS code (in case it ever did - I have no idea). 3. The fact that PCBoard is released without source, means that you can log on to a PCBoard system anywhere and know how to use it. This also means that there are far fewer chances for problemss to occur due to code hacking and insufficient testing. 4. Considering how much I've paid for the rest of my hardware and software, I'm pretty willing to pay a reasonable amount for a solid, fast, debugged, and supported BBS. I don't mean to knock RBBS - it certainly has a large enough following, but I personally prefer PCBoard, and feel that your comments are a bit unfair. (I really don't think you can conclude anything at all about a product just because it's written in Basic.) As an aside, on the users helping users concept - I run an open board (no fee required) dedicated to the exchange of information about the Forth programming language. Feel free to check it out at 703-442-8695. Msg # 5703 Dated 03-27-86 07:32:54 From: SYSOP To: JERRY SHIFRIN Re: (R)EDITORIAL I appreciate your comment on the editorial. Let me respond to each of your four points: 1. You feel the editorial is directed at PCBoard. Obviously as a PCBoard SYSOP you are best able to evaluate if PCBoard fails to meet the originality test outlined in the editorial -- "1. ...written in another language (i.e. not BASIC!) or 2. ... (has) an internal file structure and logic that is entirely different from RBBS-PC's." HOST-COMM and PC-HOST are both very good BBS systems written in the BASIC language that have entirely different file structures and internal logic. 2. You "understand that PCBoard has been totally rewritten from since its original release - this makes it unlikely to be using any RBBS code (in case it ever did - I have no idea)." By inference from your statement I can only assume that at one time you believe that PCBoard was simply a pirated copy of RBBS-PC with modifications. Also that the PCBoard "authors" got original later through the re-write process. Finally, you have no idea if either is really true because, as I say in the editorial, "...the perpetrators either won't, can't, or don't provide you with their "products" source code." If what you appear to believe about PCBoard's pedigree is true, the only analogy that I can make is that you would also believe that if a theif stole from you and invested the money profitably, then the profits rightly belong to the theif. 3. You state that since PCBoard's source code is denied you, you have the right to expect: a. "...you can log on to a PCBoard system anywhere and know how to use it." b. "...there are far fewer chances for problems to occur due to code hacking." c. "...there are far fewer chances for problems to occur due to ...insufficient testing." Regarding 3A, above, apparently you object to the tailoring that RBBS-PC allows SYSOP's to do to make it reflect their own predi- lictions. As far as 3B, above is concerned you apparently don't believe in the tenate that "software which is shared becomes better than it was" (i.e. "users helping users"). 3C apparently is your belief that products that don't release source code are better tested than products that do release source code. All I can say is I wonder if the "authors" of PCBoard agree that you can hold them libel for damages you incurr due to any problems you have in their product. 4. You state that you are "willing to pay a reasonable amount for a solid, fast, debugged, and supported BBS." Apparently the $195/ year support fee & $50/update is "reasonable." Larry Jordan's T-COMM (301)428-7931 might be a better alternative for you. T-COMM meets all your requirements (including having an RBBS-PC command structure), is efficient (i.e. it is written in "C"), is supported by its author, and is more reasonable than what you currently are willing to pay. Additionally T-COMM is original! Jerry, you have too good a board to be victimized by anyone who would steal the work of others and claim it as their own -- especially since you have other alternatives -- Larry Jordan's T-COMM or Rich Schinnell's PC-HOST (both of which I can personally recommend as fine, original products). Enjoy.... Tom Mack Msg # 5706 Dated 03-27-86 16:25:46 From: RUSS ZACCARI To: SYSOP Re: RBBS AND YOUR EDITORIAL I think that over the years and while following the progress of RBBS from 12.1 when I first became VERY active in telecommunications and bulletin board you have changed. When I first became a co-sysop I was whole-heartedly for the IDEA of public domain and the PRODUCT of rbbs. In following its progress through MANY version changes and MANY patches written by people who I have become acquainted with in these years I have become, shall we say against the way that you follow the IDEA. The idea of placing RBBS in the public domain was one such that everybody could and would make it better. I now will reference a patch made by Mark Seiden namely the late, great 12.5b9. This patch had some very nice ideas which you chose a SELECT FEW that YOU liked and put them in your code and trashed the remainder. This patch had a very large following as does RBBS. There are even some people that fought tooth and nail to change to 13.1 because they felt it a step down from where they were with 12.5b9. Then there was a programmer from Annapolis named Vince Castelli who wrote a WONDERFUL patch for 12 and rewrote it for 13.1 and is in the progress of rewriting it for 14.1 because he got run over by the wheels of RBBS. These are just a few that have been spited by your interpretation of the IDEA. Always remember it is to make the product BETTER not more TOM MACKish... In closing I would like to defend products like PC-Board. They did not steal YOUR rbbs ideas. They used something that was familar and took it to a level that they felt was higher than RBBS. This FITS INTO THE IDEA! I think that in your documentation where you praise the company that RBBS keeps you do need to include all who have spend hours, days, months, and years to bring things to people at a FASTER, EASIER and MORE EFFECTIVE rate. In your editorial you mention BASIC, well if many of us programmers out here had our choice we would write in only TURBO and/or C. Basic is a nice language for beginners but there are many faster and easier languages to use. Think about these comments and I will be interested in your response. And by the way: I would appreciate a better response then the previous responses that I got from you which totaled to one stating "I already know about it". There are still countless suggestions and ideas that you have yet to address.... Like I said you have changed over the years... Unfortunately not all for the good of the others. Russ Zaccari,SysOp, Chesapeake Message Center (301) 956-3396 Msg # 5707 Dated 03-27-86 17:02:40 From: DAVE CHAPMAN To: ALL Re: EDITORIALS I've noticed some of the comments out here on the RBBS vs. "Rip Off" BBS's and thought I'd add a word.... I've been familiar with RBBS since CPC9 (egads!) and have been amazed at the evolution of this "product". Even though I've not had an active role in the development of the source code, I hope I've helped "spread the gospel" on RBBS-PC. I DO know of the time the "committee" must put into fixes (and the MASSIVE undertaking of converting the code into a reasonable structured form); I don't know how some beta testers (like my friend Bob Cecchino in Va. Beach) can allocate the time... but they do. It really irks me to see stolen ideas (particularly, stolen ideas that are used for a profit); imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but not if you take credit for it. If the shoe fits..... David C Co-Sysop NARDAC Norfolk RBBS Msg # 5710 Dated 03-27-86 23:02:20 From: SYSOP To: RUSS ZACCARI Re: (R)RBBS AND YOUR EDITORIA Russ, I agree that over the years one of us has changed. Apparently it centers on what you define as the "IDEA" of making RBBS-PC's source code available so (in your words) "...everybody could and would make it better." You say that you are "...against the way that (I) follow the IDEA." Apparently you are against the fact that I have been faithful to "...the MANY version changes and MANY patches written by people who (you) became acquainted wiht" by always maintaining the same line numbers in all 23 versions so that the merges that others had made would be neither obsoleted nor negated. You site Mark Seiden's 12.5B9 merges as an example of "...a patch (that) had some very nice ideas which (I) choose a SELECT FEW that (I) liked and put them in your code and trashed the reminader." Did you know that Mark Seiden helped beta test CPC13-1A and all the patches that could be fit into the single 64K code segment of CPC13-1A were put in to the extent that there was only room for 155 more bytes of executable code? Recognizing this limitation, apparently you are against the fact that CPC14-1A resturctured RBBS-PC so that it could be comprised of literally as many separately compiled .BAS source files as necessary (each with the capability of containing it's own 64K code segment). Now with CPC14-1A and future RBBS-PC releases all any contributor has to do is supply a simple .MRG to the main line code (RBBS-PC.BAS) adding a call to his enhancement (which need only be distriubted as an .OBJ file that can be linked with RBBS-PC.OBJ and RBBS-SUB.OBJ). This could be a sophisticated on-line ordering module, a call-back registration module for new users, an on-line data base retreival module, or whatever! This enormous effort and time (including the extensive comments in the source code for both RBBS-PC.BAS and RBBS-SUB.BAS) so that others "could and would make it better" is something you also seem to feel is just another example of what your are "...against (in) the way that (I) follow the IDEA." Each release of RBBS-PC has tried valiantly to both be upward compatible (keeping the faith with those that did not want to change) and incorporate as many new features as could be accommodated within the limitations of BASIC. Those that have not yet been incorporated were only due to one of these two restrictions. Since you feel called on "...to defend products like PC-Board," I can only conclude that you feel that it fails to meet the two criteria (of which only one has to be meet) for being an original BBS product. I suggest you take a look at Larry Jordan's T-COMM, (301) 428-7931, if you want to see an original product that "used something that was familiar and took it to a level that they felt was higher than RBBS." It should appeal to you as it is written in "C." There is also an RBBS written in Turbo (I think it is called Colossus) which many like and which is an original BBS product. None of these products have authors that feel compelled to sneer at others or extoll their author's supremacy. Despite my best efforts to make RBBS-PC the ultimate in "users helping users," I regret that you feel that all I have been trying to do was to make it "...more TOM MACKish..." Apparently the thousands of hours spent documenting the record layouts, commenting the source code, re- structuring RBBS-PC to accommodate more and more features and modifica- tions without excluding any doesn't seem to enter into your judgement. From the very beginning even in the copyright notice I ask nothing for myself -- only for other software that can be shared, enhancements to to RBBS-PC itself, and lastly donations to the Captial PC User Group (an all-volunteer, not-for-profit PC user group). I think you are right, one of us has changed over the years. Enjoy..... Tom Mack Msg # 5715 Dated 03-28-86 16:52:02 From: JERRY SHIFRIN To: SYSOP Re: (R)EDITORIAL Thank you for taking the time to provide a considered reply to my comments. I'd like to note just a couple of things: 1. I don't assume/believe/suspect anything about the original PCBoard code. I only noted that the author stated that it had been totally rewritten from its original release. From a caller's point of view, it uses a command structure similar to RBBS, but I don't think that's an indication of anything other than the fact that there are a lot of RBBS users and there are only so many ways to read a message, download a file, etc. Even if there had been some basis of PCBoard on RBBS (which is unknown), I feel to see why you object to it since you promote other people modifying/enhancing RBBS, and since the current version (10.) of PCBoard remains available as freeware - another user helping users. 2. I don't expect a provider of public domain software to be able to provide the same support that a vendor can. I assume you have a real job which takes up much of your time. I should be able to get prompt support from a vendor on problems with his products. There are a fair number of public domain packages I use regularly (and have in general sent in the requested donations), but I would hate to have to depend on them for critical business needs. I have personally contributed a number of packages I wrote to the general community, and believe in that as a a good way for users to help each other. But I wouldn't want people to start calling me when they have problems. Users helping users - but within reason. 3. Before bringing up PCBoard, I spent at least 2 years as a BBS user, and felt I'd been able to evaluate most systems from that point of view. Larry Jordon's TCOMM is excellent in a lot of ways, but I find it cumbersome to maneuver thru all the layers. I prefer the "flat" structure of PCBoard as opposed to TCOMM, RBBS, FIDO, etc. I sincerely appreciate hearing your thoughts on this, but understand that I do not feel victimized or that I am an accomplice. I intend to stick with PCBoard until I feel I've found a package that's significantly better - faster, easier to use, or more functional. So far, I don't know of any. Msg # 5717 Dated 03-28-86 17:41:17 From: ALAN PROCTOR To: SYSOP Re: EDITORIAL I readsome of the various messages in response to your editorial. (Hmmm, seems word wrap is not working here) Anyway, some friends and I run a PCBOARD system (I take it you are referring to it?) and have been for the past few months. We originally were running RBBS. But, it seemed to us that each new version of RBBS just got sort of slower and slower running until it was really slow. I guess this was due to the networking stuff - but we were never really able to figure out why. After changing over, we found that the PCBOARD code ran really fast, and with no bugs. Some folks did find some - but the authors always fixed them the next day or so. Anyways, in comparison, RBBS and PCBOARD do not function at all in the same way. It's true that the displays are very similar - which really helps the caller's out - but as far as what appears to be happening with the code - PCBOARD seems to function quite differently - like just one menu, and the different commands, etc. I think you may be pre-judging their code because in some ways it looks like RBBS and it is written in basic. However, just becauwse of those two things - I don't think that means they stole it from you. I have heard rumors that many of the features which are now in RBBS (via Mark Sieden, etc) were actually donated by the authors of PCBOARD - like CRC Xmodem, Word Wrapping, the color driver, etc. If that is really the case, I think that maybee you should not throw stones if you live in a glass house. I'm curious - did RBBS get the items above from the PCBOARD authors? Personally, I think you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion and maybee giving RBBS a slightly tainted image not in line with the past professional attitude of it's many authors who have also spent a lot of time writing RBBS besides you. If the PCBOARD authors have a competing program - let RBBS and PCBOARD stand on their merits, functions, etc. and get on with it instead of going on a one man campaign. Personally, I think that PCBAORD has done some good in that it appears that the RBBS authors have been forced into fixing up and including some new features because of the competition and I think it is for the betterment of all. P.S. It's the little things I think that make the difference. For example, I just listed back my message (which is sort of long) but did not get a MORE prompt - PCBOARD gives me one. Msg # 5718 Dated 03-28-86 18:41:19 From: STEVE GILSON To: ALL Re: BUG IN CONFIG V1.95? I have discovered a rather peculiar behavior of the new CONFIG V1.95 for the RBBS-PC V14.1A. It seems that it refuses to repair a message base properly if the message base was originally created by the CONFIG.EXE that accompanied CPC13.1A. It works fine on MESSAGES that it created itself, however. Whenever I attempt to restore a killed message while running CPC14.1A, it gives me a FIX YOUR MESSAGES FILE WITH OPTION 145 OF CONFIG message. But using this option has no effect if the file was created using the earlier CONFIG program. The solution, of course, would seem to be to start with a freshly created MESSAGES file, but I really don't want to lose all the back messages. Has anyone else encountered this, and is there a solution? Thanks. Msg # 5720 Dated 03-28-86 19:31:58 From: ALAN PROCTOR To: TOM MACK Re: YOUR EDITORIAL I printed out your current logon editorial and reviewed it's contents at leisure. As a current PCBOARD sysop and past RBBS sysop, I would like to ask you the following non-hostile questions: Have you ever run (side-by-side) the code you refer to along with RBBS in order to compare their respective modes of operation? It appears many of the recent RBBS enhancements are a direct use of another BASIC BBS's program ideas. Are you prepared to defend RBBS code as being "original" in light of your comments? What infringement(s) has the other software made against you or the distribution of RBBS code? I have made several program suggestions to the authors of PCBOARD. All were implemented within 72 hours by professionals who wish to insure the long range functionality and standardization of their code. Does RBBS support this policy as well - since in the past I have made several suggestions(bug fixes) to you Tom which were totally ignored and still remain in your code to this date - and yet other things like MNP - go into the code which no one wants except you. Are you, Tom Mack, personnally jealous that someone else has come up with BBS code which functions faster, smoother and is more user and sysop friendly than RBBS, or are you speaking in behalf of all the RBBS authors? Since you are distributing your editorial in the public domain, are you prepared to substantiate your "claims" in the form of documented code infringements which we may all evaluate on their merits? I ask these questions since at the present time, you appear to be passing your judgement out to the masses with very little support or substantiation of your claims - other than "user supported", etc. Also, I note that the authors of PCBOARD have developed their own networking and doors features which appear to be quite different than those of RBBS - including a feature which allows several of the network nodes to "talk" between each other while on-line. I must assume that since RBBS does not have this feature - that it and all of the other features which I have had a chance to use in PCBOARD which are not supported in RBBS - came from the authors own ideas and the ideas of others which were passed to them via sources other than RBBS code and I salute them in their efforts to provide an alternative to those of us who have a mind of our own. Msg # 5721 Dated 03-28-86 22:59:31 From: PAUL KURR To: ALAN PROCTOR Re: (R)YOUR EDITORIAL I resent that remark about the use of MNP!!! I think that Tom is just looking out for the future of RBBS. MNP is one of the BEST error correcting protocalls out today. I have no connections with Microcom, other than just using their protocall. Instead of sticking with "tried and true", and inefficient protocalls, such as xmodem, and such, it seems to me that Tom is looking towards the future, expanding the limits now, instead of cramming it in, and making it work later. If MNP's next class ever hits the PD, xmodem will be a thing of the past... Msg # 5722 Dated 03-28-86 00:37:34 From: RICHARD HAMILTON To: SYSOP Re: WHAT? It looks like quite a discussion concerning RBBS and PcBoard software. I'd like to contribute a few of my own thoughts: 1) Let me state up front, that I am also a PcBoard Sysop. 2) Let me also say that before moving to PcBoard I had used RBBS for almost a whole year. 3) I too am for the user-helping-user concept. It took a lot, and I mean a lot of help from another RBBS sysop just to get me up and running. 4) I also enjoy having the source code in order to be able to customize the software to my own needs. 5) I too, put in many hours of work modifying RBBS code in order to make it work right, and to add many needed features. We were attempting to bring up a whole system of users at our company, if we had been successful, we would have gladly sent a contribution to your cause. The problem, however, was that it never quite worked right, and was always too painfully slow to maneuver around in. 6) I also program in C, assembly, and the wonderfully fun Turbo Pascal, and would hate to see any of my copyrighted material being ripped off, all of which is on the commercial market where I would really be hurt if many people were stealing my programs. Now, my reasons for the switch... 1) PcBoard is a joy to work with! 2) Before switching to PcBoard we also took a look at Colossus and T-Comm in order to justify throwing away the many hours and a lot of money (time spent working on RBBS) that we had invested in using RBBS. Neither Colossus, nor T-Comm were chosen due to their operating structure (bulkiness and awkwardness in moving around), and because they too lacked the features that we desired. 3) The single menu approach to bulletin boards is terrific! Any user becomes an expert in no time and he can't forget where he is. 4) Also, the system is fast fast fast. And I think it is written in Basic! After all of my modifications to RBBS, it NEVER came cl close! I'd really like to see the source, after my experience in C and assembly, I'd have to say that if it is written in Basic, then the authors must have spent a lot of time optimizing the code and that at least parts of it must be in assembler. 5) PcBoard has had very few bugs (as long as I've had it), and those that it did have were generally fixed within 24 hours and then redistributed. My co-worker who got RBBS for me was never able to get new RBBS source code changes that quick. We always had to try and fix it ourselves and then hope that the "real" fix would be in the next release. 6) Now they say PcBoard has it's own version of Networking and Doors. Hooray! I've been on a couple of the beta test boards and they are still just as FAST as ever. Reliable too. I had always accused RBBS of being slow and blamed it on the network code, so either these guys know something about networking that RBBS doesn't, or else they've wrought a miracle. 7) Our company is now moving along quite nicely with PcBoard, and I'm back to work on other projects. No longer do I have to maintain the code so to speak, it works like a charm and is saving us lots of money in the process. (Thanks PcBoard) After reading through the discussion on your board (I found the first few messages downloaded to another local board) I had to log on and state my devotion to PcBoard. I rather doubt your seeming implication that it is stolen from RBBS for ALL of the above reasons. I guess if I thought someone had stolen my programs I would quietly go about determining the truth and then prosecuting to the fullest, but I really believe it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. I would imagine that the Visi-Calc people felt the same way you do back when lotus 1-2-3 came out and pulled the plug on their merry-go-round. I doubt that 1-2-3 stole Visi-Calc's code because Lotus is so much better. And for the same reason, I would say the same about PcBoard. Even if it is written in basic and seems to have some of the same underlying functionality (look how lotus copied VC's ideas), I can't believe your assertions. Richard Hamilton (a previously disgruntled RBBS user, now a happy PcBoard user)  PAUL KURR To: ALAN PROCTOR Re: (R)YOUR