In-Reply-To: IP ers revenge...
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: In-Reply-To: IP ers revenge...
- From: crompton@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (D. Crompton)
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 12:11:01 EST
I don't want to seem to flame at you about this, it is just
a real touchy issue among many.... please try to understand
why telco-style BBS's are irrelevant in the internet world,
they may even eventually be a "paradigm" that needs to be
re-examined in amateur radio!
| jack spitznagel
EXACTLY the point. BBS's should be phased out in favor of such things
as POP and NNTP. In the interim interface to a local BBS. What the heck
is the big problem here! I run NOS and interface with a local 'full service'
BBS. This BBS forwards mail for TCP/IP users to me, where I either smtp
them to the final point or leave them in /spool/mail for pop'ing. This
BBS forwards bulletins (amsat,arrl etc) to my NOS BBS. TCP/IP or ax25
users connecting to my BBS can read these messages. I in turn forward
outgoing AX25 traffic to this BBS.
What is a 'full service' BBS? Can't say because I have not checked into
a BBS in ages. Seems to me it is a lot nicer to have areas then to have
all the messages clumped together. I vote for leaving the BBS the way it
is. The few minor changes that have been going on lately are fine. It is
just a refinement of what we have. Last message recall might be nice but
if it requires a major overhaul it is not worth it.
I wish people would stop trying to make NOS something that it isn't. What
it is is a very comprehensive (and complex) networking package. It works
well. Yes there are things in the current code that need fixing. Some
people would get bored with anything. The Internet/milnet basically does
no more than our networks. It ties computers together for the exchange of
information. This in itself is very powerful.
The NOS BBS should be no more (and maybe less) for the enduser. Only
server systems (one/area) would need full BBS capabilities.
And finally there is this talk about UNIX that someone always throws in.
I am getting tired of hearing it. UNIX is NOT used by the masses and
probably never will be. This is not a technical problem as much as a
marketing problem. UNIX and software for UNIX is more expensive and
not as readily available. What I mean by readily availble is FREE and
what I mean by FREE is copied commercial SW (legal or not). This is
a fact of life. The computer and SW of choice will be PC/DOS. This is
our base platform.
There is definitely a place for NOS in UNIX, but maybe the better choice
here would be to run UNIX TCP/IP services linked to a PC running NOS via
ethernet or SLIP. This could also be NOS running on the same platform in
a UNIX/DOS compatability window. In this way all the features of the UNIX
system (domain server,telnet etc) can be utilized. Perhaps an internal
link might be nice. That is NOS running in a compatibility window with
direct interface to a UNIX TCP/IP port thru a direct memory xfer.
NOS is a great package. The efforts of G1EMM, PA0GRI, WJ7G have made it
much more user friendly. What we need to do is step back and improve on
the base that we have. Versions have been coming out at a fast pace lately.
Hopefully this will slow down into a low roar and we can absorb what we
have for awhile.
These BBS/NOS capability discussions use to have a six month half-life.
Seems they are down to two months now!