Subj : Web access, false BBS ID
To   : STEPHEN HURD
From : MICHEL SAMSON
Date : Tue Nov 02 2004 02:57 am

Hi Stephen,

     About "Web access, false BBS ID" of November 1:

SH> Authors/SysOps have no need to support old platforms...
MS> ...make it work 1st, then make it popular next and lets not drop a
MS> few more BBSers each time there's a transition.
SH> Unfortunately, requiring every author to support every possible
SH> platform is not an option.

     And yet, in some cases, it IS an option:  `Kermit' is available for
any of the platforms one could reasonably consider for BBSing!  Lets not
disable the standards which already work, that's what i asked all along.

SH> It would require somewhere in the neibourhood of 10 times as much
SH> work.  That's why we use standards...  It makes it a lot easier...
SH> Support for a platform has to come from users of that platform.

     Then i suppose i'm lucky because i don't need to write any SoftWare
for DOS, `Win v3.1x', `OS/2', `Win 9x', `Win 2K', etc., etc.  You see, i
already use Columbia's official `MS-Kermit' release which can do wonders
under DOS or `Windows' (if combined with `COM/IP');  i could as well use
Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Win-16/32' on `SynchroNet' BBSes if the .INI
i submitted to the author hadn't been rejected in favour of some lighter
setup!!!  Requiring of BBSers (and especially newbies) that they acquire
knowledge which could make them become authors/SysOps themselves is just
a way to set the bar so high they'll get busy for awhile.  :(  Feel free
to believe otherwise but i just can't apply this logic as it won't help!

     I can't but comment that `MS-Kermit' & `WWKfW-16/32' are both 100 %
free and they've been available (AND IGNORED) for years, while 3rd-party
implementations damaged `Kermit's fine transfer protocol reputation.  :(

     It's not the place of users to discover that the 3rd-party `Kermit'
versions are improper for ~TelNet~ use, it's not a user's job to explain
`Kermit' SysOp pre-conceptions...  It's plain laziness when the suitable
~FOSSIL~ protocol driver has been ready for ~TelNet~ for a decade and it
is a lack of foresight when SysOps argue with the very few users who try
to have `Kermit' installed that they're "the only ones" to use it.  Hey,
if it had been used wisely in the mid-nineties no one would doubt of its
capabilities today but which BBSer will persist when SysOps don't!  It's
not nice when a BBSer is forced to manage with BBS SoftWare and the work
he's done so far is rejected even before he has tested it!...  One BBSer
has tried to conform to your principle - ME - and i can tell you this is
a dead end:  transfering SysOp duties to BBSers is like an escape to me.

     Of course, you should feel free to believe otherwise!!!  :)  As far
as i'm concerned, each `ZMoDem' failure leaves one impression:  ~TelNet~
BBSes aren't reliable.  Then, when it happens that ~WEB~-based BBSes too
aren't reliable, a larger part of the hobby is suffering even further...

     BBSers are no masochists with too much spare-time to spend, really!

                                    Salutations,  %->

                                    Michel Samson
                                    a/s Bicephale
                                    http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/


.... Rob's SBBS/Kermit:  spend spare-time just to prove it was dead wrong
--- MultiMail/DOS - http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/MSK.INI waiting!
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

.