Text 625, 79 rader
Skriven 2004-09-02 18:44:08 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
    Kommentar till text 615 av Maurice Kinal (1:153/401.1)
Ärende: zmodem
==============
 ml>> no, not really... you do it like that as a point...

[you are a sysop, too]

 MK> With one user, me.  :-)

yeah... but that doesn't negate the reality of the situation OB-)

 ml>> there's a bit of a difference there ;)  points are
 ml>> "superusers" 'cause they do things like sysops do...
 ml>> you're a sysop, too OB-)

 MK> Sort of.

you are a sysop... the nodelist says so ;)

 MK> I liken it more to an offline user who uses the
 MK> native Fido pkt format for transfered messages rather
 MK> then any other format such as qwk.

nothing to "liken" it to... you state reality...

 MK> From the server's perspective the points might appear
 MK> as "superusers" seeing as they have the same access as
 MK> other Fido nodes but from any of the point's perspective
 MK> they are "regular" users not really all that different
 MK> then any BBS's offline users.

other than the fact that "regular" bbs users can play doorgames and such while
they're online before or after they get/send their qwks... point users have to
dial in a second time from a normal terminal instead of using a mailer ;)

 MK> Where the real benefit and savings are is that there are
 MK> no extra utilities required on the server (BBS) to make
 MK> this scheme work.  What works for one, should work for all.

this is also true...

 ml>> this is not true... for many, zmodem lives on live and strong...

 MK> I have yet to find one around here,

no doubt way up there in the frozen space <<GG>>

 MK> especially on the internet.  If there are any accessable ones,
 MK> POTS or otherwise, I personally am not aware of them.

that last qualifier really says it all ;)

 ml>> FYI: DOS is not dead ;)

 MK> Yeah I know.  For me it definetly is and has been for about a
 MK> decade now.  I don't miss it or any aspect of it.

<<GG>>  well, i haven't run in a pure DOS environment for more than a decade,
myself... but i do use it all the time within the other environments that i
use...

 MK>>> Same with terminal packages on Linux.  Why?  For Windows
 MK>>> sure, seeing it is so crippled by default, but Linux doesn't
 MK>>> need them.

 ml>> ya lost me here with a switch in midstream... "doesn't need
 ml>> them" is speaking of what? terminal packages?

 MK> Right.  Linux doesn't need any extra terminal packages, such
 MK> as minicom for example, to be able to successfully transfer
 MK> information from the console, whether it be {up,down}loading
 MK> of files or terminal information back and forth between a user
 MK> and a truly capable terminal based BBS.  Sorry for any
 MK> confusion.

i had thought you were going that direction with that statement... it only
makes sense... *nix is all based on terminals whereas DOS and other
environments are not... quite different approaches...

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)