Text 763, 100 rader
Skriven 2007-03-25 00:14:26 av Maurice Kinal (1:140/13)
    Kommentar till text 761 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
Ärende: Fidonet URL syntax
==========================
Hey Peter!

Mar 25 09:50 07, Peter Knapper wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 PK> I guess the prime issue I have here is that the management wrapper 
 PK> around the internet environment just doesnt seem to lend itself to 
 PK> the method used on a BBS.

I haven't really noticed that other then with a dialup line a BBS normally only
has one user to deal with at any given moment, whereas with an internetted (or
intranetwork) connection there could be more then one at any given moment which
can cause problems especially in echoes where more then one user is entering a
message at the same time.  For that case, and simular cases, temp files seem to
be the way to go.

 PK> EG here, ALL callers to my BBS get 
 PK> read-only access first call, but if they want WRITE access, then they 
 PK> have to leave personal information that I can manually validate 
 PK> before write access is given.

Understood.  That is an issue no matter what connection.

 PK> This approach works because a BBS 
 PK> caller is (usually) local to me, and thus the volume is low so the 
 PK> process is managable, but with internet access... all bets are off.

Not really since if they don't have access in the first place it shouldn't
matter.  The same could be said about email and these days I can access my
particular account from anywhere as long as I enter the right information wrt
that account.  Chances are I never would do this on any computer that isn't
completely secure to me since that information would then be accessable to
someone(s) else which isn't a good idea but I think the idea is the same with
BBS accessabilty and just because a BBS is on the internet doesn't mean it be
accessable to all.  Heck even the web these days wants far more out of me as a
user then I care to offer them.  It never used to be that way and now it seems
that with these so-called enhancements the web is more insecure then it ever
was, and all in the name of security.  Very sad no?

 PK> to be applied to an internet world, and the moment you lose that the 
 PK> quality goes down and thereby the value of the content.

Amen.  I think Google has proven that.  I heard there is a two billion dollar
lawsuit going on revolving around crappy content that probably isn't worth two
cents.  <EG>

 PK> That brings back memories, I used to use a local *nix based messaging 
 PK> system with internet connectivity via an accademic environment, long 
 PK> before public internet became available to the masses.......;-).

Those were the days my friend.

 PK> From those visits, can you see an approach that could be applied to 
 PK> HTTP based access, that provides the management arm of BBS type 
 PK> operation?

I tried that once and failed.  I think it could be done but would take more
effort than it was worth to me.  I managed to get it to work with a text
browser but a couple GUI ones I tried at the time totally failed and one froze
up and I had to kill it manually.  Oh well.  I tried.

 PK> but simply because of the geographic dispersion of end users and the 
 PK> "validation" methods that are acceptable. 

Agreed.

 PK> to the same level. In many ways the internet world as we know it 
 PK> today is a haven for anarchists......;-)

I sort of doubt that.  Maybe anarchist wannabes.  I think real anarchists
probably have better things to do.

 PK> I agree, Fidonet is about a textual user interface, not graphics.

I think it is possible to encorporate graphics but so far I am not sure why.  I
can see audio streams being something that might be worthwhile potentially for
blind users.  Deaf people can usually read so they could easily fit in with
things as is.

 PK> become part of the textual message itself. I am still not convinced 
 PK> that this approach is even viable...

InterBBS and multiuser online games perhaps.  Chat comes to mind.  I don't
think any of that needs to be addressed by Fido standards though.

 PK> Since I started using Maximus/2 V1.03 on a 286 under OS/2 v1.3 I have 
 PK> used Maximus/2 to read and write messages. I have not seen a need to 
 PK> change that (yet). 

I like Maximus.  Haven't used it myself in roughly a decade now.

 PK> We are actually much closer in our thinking that it first 
 PK> appeared....;-)

No surprise here.  ;-)

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0
 * Origin: Coffin Point BBS (1:140/13)