Hi all,

Just going through some files on my system and came across Hotline.

Anyone still using this system any more?
If so does anyone know of any trackers.


Raven

---
■ Synchronet ■ MickyBay - mickybay.com

Re: Hotline
By: Raven to All on Tue Oct 21 2014 09:43 pm

Hi all,

Just going through some files on my system and came across Hotline.

Anyone still using this system any more?
If so does anyone know of any trackers.

i dont believe there are any hotline users. kdx servers are few also.
best bet would be google
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Raven on Tue Oct 21 2014 09:05 pm

Just going through some files on my system and came across Hotline.

Anyone still using this system any more?
If so does anyone know of any trackers.

i dont believe there are any hotline users. kdx servers are few also.
best bet would be google

I sure would like to see BBSes have a Hotline/KDX-like extension to them. It would be useful, just like NNTP and FTP is, except then you could have an all encompassing client that can handle files, messages, chat, and even ansi/rip and door games.

I know it would definitely encourage less technical users to use the filebases.


Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Tue Oct 21 2014 19:39:08

I sure would like to see BBSes have a Hotline/KDX-like extension to
them. It would be useful, just like NNTP and FTP is, except then you
could have an all encompassing client that can handle files, messages, chat, and even ansi/rip and door games.

I know it would definitely encourage less technical users to use the filebases.

It's a cool idea, but these days, I'm not sure I see much point in an integrated BBS client with the standard internet protocols that we use today. The advantage of using separate clients for the various protocols is that you can pick and choose what client software programs you want to use for each. You can use your preferred telnet client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc., rather than it being all included in one program which you might or might not like.

All-in-one clients were needed with proprietary services that did everything their own way, like AOL used to be (before they adopted internet technologies). Now I don't think all-in-one clients are needed so much.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Tue Oct 21 2014 09:01 pm

It's a cool idea, but these days, I'm not sure I see much point in an integrated BBS client with the standard internet protocols that we use today. The advantage of using separate clients for the various protocols is that you can pick and choose what client software programs you want to use for each. You can use your preferred telnet client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc., rather than it being all included in one program which you might or might not like.

All-in-one clients were needed with proprietary services that did
everything their own way, like AOL used to be (before they adopted internet technologies). Now I don't think all-in-one clients are needed so much.

Well the point is to make it feel like a community. When you connect in with NNTP, you don't see the BBS announcements, people can't chat with you, you can't download files.

Conversely, when you connect with FTP, you can't access message bases, or chat,
or play door games, or see announcements.

When you connect with telnet, you can't easily manage your uploads (or maximize
the transfer rate of modern protocols and networks), and message bases are cumbersome (not difficult, but newbies are turned off by it).

The web interface is probably the best of all the modern technologies, as it lets you access most of the BBS. But it loses out on charm and the feel of 8-bit/ANSI. Also, you can't really manage your file uploads/downloads in a way that really encourages people to participate.

An integrated client will allow you to shore it all up together, so that people
aren't fractured across all different types of services. Just because the net's
modern technologies are available, it doesn't always make for building communities. In fact, that's the reason the BBS scene broke down -- because now
people get fractured into isolated topics, isolated technologies, etc by the internet's offerings.

You'll gain the added benefits of bulk uploading, bulk downloading in queues, the ability to throttle intuitively, the ability to chat and read messages while the file transfers occur, the ability to display ANSI as embedded images or HTML in order to retain the vibe and feel of a real BBS at console, and maybe even the option toggle alternative interfaces (i.e. RIP).

I know some thrive in their consoles -- I use to be one of these people. But, I
know the masses will not. They want an easy to use GUI, in a native app of some
kind, etc. And while the masses bring their own negative influence to any community, I'm sure we can all agree that we'd like to see the BBS community grow again, and not just be limited to a few nostalghic users and a plethera of
BBS sysops.

As for proprietary protocols? That doesn't have to be. AOL had a proprietary protocol because they were a company and it was their intellectual property and
they wanted to protect it. But, this could be open source, so that any BBS can implement these extensions.

I'm not suggesting that we just take Hotline or KDX and build extensions into Synchronet or Mystic or whatever and use the existing clients. I'm suggesting something entirely new, something that is a nice hybrid between the charm of the original BBS and modern technologies. It may be that everything is done over HTTP and WebSockets. Maybe FTP even is involved. But the experience in the
client must be fully integrated. Each service uses the same authentication credentials, and things operate smoothly and from a central interface, rather than 10 separate applications.

You might like having your choice in differnet client apps for different protocols, but it wouldn't be necessary for the average user. They'd simply have a "Whatever this is called" app, and drop in the BBS host/port, and away they go. The BBS can negotiate the rest of the details to the client app.

Also, there's no reason this would have to replace anything existing. It would just be a new integration, right next to FTP/NNTP/HTTP/SMTP. The key being that
it would serve to offer users with an integrated experience, rather than a segregated one.

And with the prevalence of App Store apps out there for Mac, iOS, Android, Windows, etc I know that it would fit in quite nicely.


Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Alot of sence being made by Knight !!

I have to agree with Knight on alot of what has been said.

I think it would be a great idea to have an "All In One" package that will help users to, Well USE our systems.

Most if not ALL new users to my systems over the years have found it very hard to use the Telnet side of the BBS (Synchronet) because these days people love the nice fluffy GUI most sites use.

It seems to me there has to be a change if our systems are going to become more popular or even to survive.
Yes keep the systems as they are for the "Experts" or the BBS Savey but have a program like Hotline to enable new people to the hobbie to connect and for the community we ALL want.

A new user is going to struggle to setup all the different software and i feel an all in one program is a good start for them untill they get used to the system.

is there anyone out there that could produce such a free program for our users.


Raven.

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Tue Oct 21 2014 09:01 pm

It's a cool idea, but these days, I'm not sure I see much point in an integrated BBS client with the standard internet protocols that we use today. The advantage of using separate clients for the various protocols

is

that you can pick and choose what client software programs you want to

use

for each. You can use your preferred telnet client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc., rather than it being all

included

in one program which you might or might not like.

All-in-one clients were needed with proprietary services that did everything their own way, like AOL used to be (before they adopted

internet

technologies). Now I don't think all-in-one clients are needed so much.

Well the point is to make it feel like a community. When you connect in with NNTP, you don't see the BBS announcements, people can't chat with you, you can't download files.

Conversely, when you connect with FTP, you can't access message bases, or chat,
or play door games, or see announcements.

When you connect with telnet, you can't easily manage your uploads (or maximize
the transfer rate of modern protocols and networks), and message bases are cumbersome (not difficult, but newbies are turned off by it).

The web interface is probably the best of all the modern technologies, as it lets you access most of the BBS. But it loses out on charm and the feel of 8-bit/ANSI. Also, you can't really manage your file uploads/downloads in a

way

that really encourages people to participate.

An integrated client will allow you to shore it all up together, so that people
aren't fractured across all different types of services. Just because the net's
modern technologies are available, it doesn't always make for building communities. In fact, that's the reason the BBS scene broke down -- because now
people get fractured into isolated topics, isolated technologies, etc by the internet's offerings.

You'll gain the added benefits of bulk uploading, bulk downloading in

queues,

the ability to throttle intuitively, the ability to chat and read messages while the file transfers occur, the ability to display ANSI as embedded

images

or HTML in order to retain the vibe and feel of a real BBS at console, and maybe even the option toggle alternative interfaces (i.e. RIP).

I know some thrive in their consoles -- I use to be one of these people.

But,

I
know the masses will not. They want an easy to use GUI, in a native app of some
kind, etc. And while the masses bring their own negative influence to any community, I'm sure we can all agree that we'd like to see the BBS community grow again, and not just be limited to a few nostalghic users and a plethera of
BBS sysops.

As for proprietary protocols? That doesn't have to be. AOL had a proprietary protocol because they were a company and it was their intellectual property and
they wanted to protect it. But, this could be open source, so that any BBS

can

implement these extensions.

I'm not suggesting that we just take Hotline or KDX and build extensions

into

Synchronet or Mystic or whatever and use the existing clients. I'm

suggesting

something entirely new, something that is a nice hybrid between the charm of the original BBS and modern technologies. It may be that everything is done over HTTP and WebSockets. Maybe FTP even is involved. But the experience in the
client must be fully integrated. Each service uses the same authentication credentials, and things operate smoothly and from a central interface,

rather

than 10 separate applications.

You might like having your choice in differnet client apps for different protocols, but it wouldn't be necessary for the average user. They'd simply have a "Whatever this is called" app, and drop in the BBS host/port, and

away

they go. The BBS can negotiate the rest of the details to the client app.

Also, there's no reason this would have to replace anything existing. It

would

just be a new integration, right next to FTP/NNTP/HTTP/SMTP. The key being that
it would serve to offer users with an integrated experience, rather than a segregated one.

And with the prevalence of App Store apps out there for Mac, iOS, Android, Windows, etc I know that it would fit in quite nicely.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

---
■ Synchronet ■ MickyBay - mickybay.com

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 00:41:21

It's a cool idea, but these days, I'm not sure I see much point in an
integrated BBS client with the standard internet protocols that we use
today. The advantage of using separate clients for the various
protocols is that you can pick and choose what client software
programs you want to use for each. You can use your preferred telnet
client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc.,

Well the point is to make it feel like a community. When you connect in with NNTP, you don't see the BBS announcements, people can't chat with you, you can't download files.

Conversely, when you connect with FTP, you can't access message bases, or chat, or play door games, or see announcements.

When you connect with telnet, you can't easily manage your uploads (or maximize the transfer rate of modern protocols and networks), and message bases are cumbersome (not difficult, but newbies are turned off by it).

An integrated client will allow you to shore it all up together, so that people aren't fractured across all different types of services. Just because the net's modern technologies are available, it doesn't always make for building communities. In fact, that's the reason the BBS scene broke down -- because now people get fractured into isolated topics, isolated technologies, etc by the internet's offerings.

I still don't think an integrated client is needed. For instance, if someone is on telnet and wants to access the BBS's web interface, the user can launch their web browser and access it. If the user doesn't want to do that, then that's fine.

Also, all of those different protocols tend to mainly be different ways to access the same things, at least with Synchronet. Content such as message bases and files can be accessed both via telnet and the web; files can be accessed via telnet, FTP, and the web interface; etc.. I'd probably say telnet is still the most complete way to access a BBS, because typically a BBS is designed to provide access to all content via telnet. If a user wants to access the BBS with a different protocol, they can simply launch the appropriate application to do so.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 08:00 am

I still don't think an integrated client is needed. For instance, if someon is on telnet and wants to access the BBS's web interface, the user can launc their web browser and access it. If the user doesn't want to do that, then that's fine.

Also, all of those different protocols tend to mainly be different ways to access the same things, at least with Synchronet. Content such as message bases and files can be accessed both via telnet and the web; files can be accessed via telnet, FTP, and the web interface; etc.. I'd probably say tel is still the most complete way to access a BBS, because typically a BBS is designed to provide access to all content via telnet. If a user wants to access the BBS with a different protocol, they can simply launch the appropriate application to do so.

I agree with both of you oddly enough. Maybe that's confusing so perhaps I can shed some light.

I personally wouldn't want to access my board or others via all in one client - I enjoy the telnet experience because it is a telnet experience. Sure I can read boards via the web and sometimes I do what's easiest, but you can't take away the charm of console for me at least.

But for other people I know IRL it is quite the endeavor to get them to log-on and grasp any appeal before they lose their attention. Comparatively speaking, most people find concepts beyond pointing and clicking to be too foreign to get over in the short run. I think presentation is key, but whether you need a new client or a few more mods to make it friendly is a matter of opinion. I know Knight likes to develop iPhone apps and he may have that particularly in mind - try to picture your average iPhone user and then what might baffle them about a bbs. For many, something like an iPhone might be someone's most intimate relationship with a computer.

It's irrelevant that I'm an android user, but I think there's a bunch of ways that the synchronet web interface can be tricked out and probably modernized for things like mobile and maybe the login cookies could be passed as rlogin credentials to the terminal, little things that abstract some of the the things we're used to as people with the patience to be sysops. Things like alternative CSS key layouts for games and macros could be cool. Clickable hyperlinks in the flash/html term. Those aren't things I personally need, but are some things I could see a completely fresh face to BBS'ing be able to enjoy. Like a way to interface with a BBS just by clicking buttons on the screen in a browser or a bundled web app, and watching the console output but not giving it direct input, just using the buttons as a way to send commands.

For now though, I've come to accept that I've got to take the users that can deal with a terminal interface or step up my synchronet web config. I'm still workin on stuff so I'm not concerned about attracting iPhone users, yet. I've tested with them, and they get confused. I will try again though.

ll morph G futureland.grudgemirror.com LaRRy LaGoMoRpH\-/
O
=M=
'not your average board check it out' /-\


---
■ Synchronet ■ Futureland.Grudgemirror.Com ** LIVE ** Music and

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Tue Oct 21 2014 07:39 pm

i dont believe there are any hotline users. kdx servers are few also. best bet would be google

I sure would like to see BBSes have a Hotline/KDX-like extension to them.
It would be useful, just like NNTP and FTP is, except then you could have
an all encompassing client that can handle files, messages, chat, and even ansi/rip and door games.

I know it would definitely encourage less technical users to use the filebases.

yeah it would be nice. but that client -> server stuff never worked for bbses. you can link kdx chat with regular irc though.. and you can use irc through a synchronet bbs or win32 bbs with mannirc
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Tue Oct 21 2014 09:01 pm

It's a cool idea, but these days, I'm not sure I see much point in an integrated BBS client with the standard internet protocols that we use today. The advantage of using separate clients for the various protocols is that you can pick and choose what client software programs you want to use for each. You can use your preferred telnet client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc., rather than it being all included in one program which you might or might not like.

well i see where he is coming from, because from a user standpoint, what kdx offered was better than a user having to use all these separate clients.

it created a community where people could chat, post msgs and download files. too bad the kdx author was a bit of a nut.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 08:00 am

I still don't think an integrated client is needed. For instance, if someone is on telnet and wants to access the BBS's web interface, the user can launch their web browser and access it. If the user doesn't want to do that, then that's fine.

Also, all of those different protocols tend to mainly be different ways to access the same things, at least with Synchronet. Content such as message bases and files can be accessed both via telnet and the web; files can be accessed via telnet, FTP, and the web interface; etc.. I'd probably say telnet is still the most complete way to access a BBS, because typically a BBS is designed to provide access to all content via telnet. If a user wants to access the BBS with a different protocol, they can simply launch

you're thinking about this like a sysop. think about it like a user would.
pick someone who you know who never used a bbs and point them at yours and then watch them. listen to what they say and then see if this person will continue to call your system.

if you run a service you have to give people what they want, even if they dont know what it is they want. you have to think like the users.

you say to a person, "if you want to do this, then launch that, if you want to do this, then simply launch this program..."

they will think 'fuck you very much' and go do something else, most likely.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 08:00 am

I still don't think an integrated client is needed. For instance, if someone is on telnet and wants to access the BBS's web interface, the user can launch their web browser and access it. If the user doesn't want to do that, then that's fine.

Also, all of those different protocols tend to mainly be different ways to access the same things, at least with Synchronet. Content such as message bases and files can be accessed both via telnet and the web; files can be accessed via telnet, FTP, and the web interface; etc.. I'd probably say telnet is still the most complete way to access a BBS, because typically a BBS is designed to provide access to all content via telnet. If a user wants to access the BBS with a different protocol, they can simply launch the appropriate application to do so.

I would venture to say that you are a poweruser, and at the very least a BBS poweruser. Also, you seem to enjoy your particular scenario quite well. And that's great -- I certainly have no intention to see these interfaces disappear.

But I will tell you that over the last 20 years of watching BBSes decline, people using services like Napster, Hotline/KDX, and the internet at large, one
thing that seems to deter people from BBSes is the complexity of connecting and
the lack of community.

There are certainly the types of users that like a challenge -- they want to learn what telnet is, how to setup an NNTP client, etc -- but there are significantly more people who want everything to work automatically. Simple, minimal interfaces that make it easy for them to do the things they want to do.
And whe you tell your users that they have all these different protocols, different ways of connecting, it does confuse them. Sure, not the powerusers, but the bulk of people out there.

You might be happy with a small userbase, hopefully enough to fill your system all the time, but I'm not. It's even harder for us less established BBSes because only other sysops or occassionally a nostalghic BBSer will stumble on it.

But with an integrated client, on desktops, tablets, and mobile phones, you'll see a lot more casual traffic, as people want to check out what this "Whatever you want to call it" app is that they heard about, that has a built in BBS list
that they can click on a BBS and connect, and then queue up some file transfers, and then chat with the regulars to learn more.

You just won't see random people deciding to telnet randomly. It's just not going to happen.

Also, the web interfaces for most of these BBSes are so generic that it turns people off. They may poke around for a minute, but they'll never come back. They just don't understand it.

Anyway -- that's my 2 cents. I might get around to working on this at some point (I'll probably post something at http://github.com/kevinelliott when I do), because I certainly have the need. A lot of others I've talked to recently
seem to as well. Assuming I do start something, anyone else with development chops is welcome to join in. At the very least it's just another way to access existing BBSes that enable the extension.

I appreciate your feedback.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: LaRRy LaGoMoRpH to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 12:01 pm

I agree with both of you oddly enough. Maybe that's confusing so perhaps I can shed some light.

I personally wouldn't want to access my board or others via all in one client - I enjoy the telnet experience because it is a telnet experience. Sure I can read boards via the web and sometimes I do what's easiest, but you can't take away the charm of console for me at least.

But for other people I know IRL it is quite the endeavor to get them to log-on and grasp any appeal before they lose their attention.
Comparatively speaking, most people find concepts beyond pointing and clicking to be too foreign to get over in the short run. I think presentation is key, but whether you need a new client or a few more mods
to make it friendly is a matter of opinion. I know Knight likes to develop iPhone apps and he may have that particularly in mind - try to picture your average iPhone user and then what might baffle them about a bbs. For many, something like an iPhone might be someone's most intimate relationship with a computer.

I develop a lot of software for all types of interfaces. I started using unix around 1990 (minix, System V, etc) which was also around the release of the first Linux kernel. I was emphatic about CLI for most of 2 decades. Maybe I got
"old" or lost interest, but having a sexy UI is appealing to me. There's a thousand times the apps, games, information, etc on the internet now, and with that comes distraction. So it's nice to have interfaces that simplify the way you access things.

I still write a lot of CLI and server code (with no UIs) on a weekly basis. So not everything I do has to have a GUI, by any means.

It might also be that there isn't a good terminal client for OS X anymore. SyncTERM is pretty awesome (it's the only decent one I've used), but it doesn't
allow multiple windows (and thus, no connections to multiple bbses at the same time), nor does it let you drag and drop files to upload. There's no upload queueing. There's no window resizing. There's no way to use message bases and easily have a chat with a user logged in at the same time.

It's irrelevant that I'm an android user, but I think there's a bunch of ways that the synchronet web interface can be tricked out and probably modernized for things like mobile and maybe the login cookies could be passed as rlogin credentials to the terminal, little things that abstract some of the the things we're used to as people with the patience to be sysops. Things like alternative CSS key layouts for games and macros could be cool. Clickable hyperlinks in the flash/html term. Those aren't things I personally need, but are some things I could see a completely fresh face to BBS'ing be able to enjoy. Like a way to interface with a BBS just by clicking buttons on the screen in a browser or a bundled web app, and watching the console output but not giving it direct input, just using the buttons as a way to send commands.

Absolutely. I love the charm of dialup/telnet console interfaces that BBSes have. In my
vision, this integrated client would retain a lot of that. Perhaps by dynamically delivering ASC/ANS files to the client via an internal file transfer thread and then converting it for display on the client by way of HTML
and displaying it in a widget pane in the GUI. Sysops would retain full control
over the style and design of their board, but gain advantages of the integrated
client.

Exactly, people could click around, and feel their way through the BBS, not needing a keyboard until data needs to be entered. This saves screen realestate
on tablets and mobiles, but still retains the charm of the traditional interface.

For now though, I've come to accept that I've got to take the users that
can deal with a terminal interface or step up my synchronet web config.
I'm still workin on stuff so I'm not concerned about attracting iPhone users, yet. I've tested with them, and they get confused. I will try
again though.

I don't think there are any wrong solutions here. BBSes are mostly irrelevant in society today (I still feel dirty and bad when I say that), making them more
an expression of art than of utility. Obviously they offer functionality that we all enjoy and embrace, but society generally doesn't. They view BBSes as this weird relic of the past, and we're all just "unwilling" to move forward and let go of our dear beloved hobby. That keeps most of us happy! But since it's an expression of art, more or less, then each of our implementations is good in their own way.

At the very least, I'm enjoying this dialog we're having.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 04:11 pm

yeah it would be nice. but that client -> server stuff never worked for bbses. you can link kdx chat with regular irc though.. and you can use irc through a synchronet bbs or win32 bbs with mannirc

Doesn't the client/server stuff work fine now, with FTP/HTTP/NNTP/SMTP extensions in a lot of the modern BBS platforms? (i.e. Synchronet and Mystic)

This would just be an amalgamation of them with a unified UI.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 04:13 pm

well i see where he is coming from, because from a user standpoint, what
kdx offered was better than a user having to use all these separate
clients.

it created a community where people could chat, post msgs and download files. too bad the kdx author was a bit of a nut.

Exactly. And no doubt that after 6 months of a "less technical user" using the BBS via this integrated client, some of the regular users might lure him into trying telnet or one of the other distinct means of access, as he "graduates" into a real BBS user.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 12:41 am

Also, there's no reason this would have to replace anything existing. It wou just be a new integration, right next to FTP/NNTP/HTTP/SMTP. The key being t it would serve to offer users with an integrated experience, rather than a segregated one.

I personally like using a telnet client to access a BBS, but it would be cool to see an app that could provide a nice graphical face for the BBS. It would be nice to see a client that would show the message boards like directories that can be expanded by clicking on them, with threads that might open a new window which contains the posts. It would be kinda like some old gopher clients. You could use the same system in the file section and email section to organize files and messages. You could even put in a chat section. It could have tabs at the top of the window to switch between sections. Maybe have a few buttons on top like "sys info" to tell you about the software it's using, version, and the sysop for those who are interested. The email tab could flash if you received a message from another user. Oh yes, and another button on top to view the announcements that would otherwise display when you login to BBS via telnet.

Anyway that's my idea.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Retro Archive - bbs.retroarchive.org

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 16:16:59

I still don't think an integrated client is needed. For instance, if
someone is on telnet and wants to access the BBS's web interface, the
user can launch their web browser and access it. If the user doesn't
want to do that, then that's fine.

such as message bases and files can be accessed both via telnet and
the web; files can be accessed via telnet, FTP, and the web interface;
etc.. I'd probably say telnet is still the most complete way to
access a BBS, because typically a BBS is designed to provide access to
all content via telnet. If a user wants to access the BBS with a
different protocol, they can simply launch

you're thinking about this like a sysop. think about it like a user would. pick someone who you know who never used a bbs and point them at yours and then watch them. listen to what they say and then see if this person will continue to call your system.

you say to a person, "if you want to do this, then launch that, if you want to do this, then simply launch this program..."

they will think 'fuck you very much' and go do something else, most likely.

I can see that an integrated client would be an easy and slick way to access an online service. But even as a user, I understand that different types of data/protocols often requires a different client. Also, for the internet, we have always had separate client apps. There are web browsers, FTP clients, IRC clients, news readers, email clients, etc., and they're all separate apps. That concept is not new. There has never been any integrated "internet client" software.

I believe AOL used to have an integrated client back when AOL was its own proprietary service. Look at where AOL is now.. Does anyone actually use AOL anymore?

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 15:11:32

I still don't think an integrated client is needed. For instance, if
someone is on telnet and wants to access the BBS's web interface, the
user can launch their web browser and access it. If the user doesn't
want to do that, then that's fine.

I would venture to say that you are a poweruser, and at the very least a BBS poweruser. Also, you seem to enjoy your particular scenario quite well. And that's great -- I certainly have no intention to see these interfaces disappear.

But I will tell you that over the last 20 years of watching BBSes decline,
people using services like Napster, Hotline/KDX, and the internet at large, one thing that seems to deter people from BBSes is the complexity of connecting and the lack of community.

In the last 20 years, as the internet has become more popular, there have always been separate clients for various protocols. There's Napster, web browsers, IRC clients, FTP clients, news readers, email clients - all separate apps. People have not been deterred from using the internet though. Granted, most people don't seem to be very aware that there's much to the internet beyond the web (and many people seem to equate the world wide web with the internet).

Simple, minimal interfaces that make it easy for them to do the things they want to do. And whe you tell your users that they have all these different protocols, different ways of connecting, it does confuse them. Sure, not the powerusers, but the bulk of people out there.

Yeah, it might seem overwhelming at first to someone who isn't familiar with it all.

You might be happy with a small userbase, hopefully enough to fill your system all the time, but I'm not. It's even harder for us less established BBSes because only other sysops or occassionally a nostalghic BBSer will stumble on it.

But with an integrated client, on desktops, tablets, and mobile phones, you'll see a lot more casual traffic, as people want to check out what this "Whatever you want to call it" app is that they heard about, that has a built in BBS list that they can click on a BBS and connect, and then queue up some file transfers, and then chat with the regulars to learn more.

Yeah, I can see how something like that would be useful. I'm wondering how an integrated client would work on a mobile phone though - The screen is very small, so there isn't much room to display much information at the same time. Even just a telnet interface could use the whole screen (and I've seen telnet apps for mobile phones that do that).

The topic of how to make BBSes more popular has come up on BBS forums from
time to time, and it seems like a hard question to answer. I'll admit, I think it would be cool to see an integrated client app that could access all the various parts of a modern BBS in one app. I'd be curious to hear peoples' ideas about how to make it a better experience than what we have currently though - Perhaps I'm just used to using the separate apps for the different protocols. I suppose having an integrated client would allow for easy simultaneous use of the protocols - playing a door game via telnet while downloading a file via FTP, etc..

Anyway -- that's my 2 cents. I might get around to working on this at some
point (I'll probably post something at http://github.com/kevinelliott when I do), because I certainly have the need. A lot of others I've talked to recently seem to as well. Assuming I do start something, anyone else with development chops is welcome to join in. At the very least it's just another way to access existing BBSes that enable the extension.

By "the extension", I assume you mean Hotline? It seems that most modern BBS packages support the standard internet protocols (telnet, SSH, web, NNTP, etc.) - I'd imagine an integrated BBS client would have to support these protocols.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Wed Oct 22 2014 03:28 pm

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 04:11 pm

yeah it would be nice. but that client -> server stuff never worked for bbses. you can link kdx chat with regular irc though.. and you can use irc through a synchronet bbs or win32 bbs with mannirc

Doesn't the client/server stuff work fine now, with FTP/HTTP/NNTP/SMTP extensions in a lot of the modern BBS platforms? (i.e. Synchronet and Mystic)

This would just be an amalgamation of them with a unified UI.

these clients are more widely avaliable and you can use them for many things.

bbses that require a specific requirment have ALWAYS spelled doom for that particular bbs software. it never ever worked out.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Wed Oct 22 2014 03:30 pm

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 04:13 pm

well i see where he is coming from, because from a user standpoint, what kdx offered was better than a user having to use all these separate clients.

it created a community where people could chat, post msgs and download files. too bad the kdx author was a bit of a nut.

Exactly. And no doubt that after 6 months of a "less technical user" using the BBS via this integrated client, some of the regular users might lure
him into trying telnet or one of the other distinct means of access, as he "graduates" into a real BBS user.

it's hard for a lot of us to step abck and look at what it is like for people that are new to bbsing or even technology. stuff that is second nature to me now was very alien and difficult back when i was in my young teens.

i remember when i was even afraid to run pkunzip and wouldnt do it even when someone told me how easy it was and what to do exactly. i would drag and drop onto the executable.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Mr. Cool to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 04:05 pm

rather than a segregated one.

I personally like using a telnet client to access a BBS, but it would be cool to see an app that could provide a nice graphical face for the BBS.
It would be nice to see a client that would show the message boards like directories that can be expanded by clicking on them, with threads that might open a new window which contains the posts. It would be kinda like some old gopher clients. You could use the same system in the file section and email section to organize files and messages. You could even put in a chat section. It could have tabs at the top of the window to switch
between sections. Maybe have a few buttons on top like "sys info" to tell you about the software it's using, version, and the sysop for those who are interested. The email tab could flash if you received a message from another user. Oh yes, and another button on top to view the announcements that would otherwise display when you login to BBS via telnet.

perhaps we could meet in the middle and someday have some html5 app that would parse regular bbses and have them restructured into an easy to use community interface.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Mro on Wed Oct 22 2014 08:47 pm

they will think 'fuck you very much' and go do something else, most likely.

I can see that an integrated client would be an easy and slick way to
access an online service. But even as a user, I understand that different types of data/protocols often requires a different client. Also, for the internet, we have always had separate client apps. There are web browsers, FTP clients, IRC clients, news readers, email clients, etc., and they're

you still are *not* looking at it like a regular joe.
get a regular person, not a computer guy and sit their ass infront of
a bbs and watch.

I believe AOL used to have an integrated client back when AOL was its own proprietary service. Look at where AOL is now.. Does anyone actually use AOL anymore?

aol was fucking huge. and all it was, was a gui bbs that adopted newer technologies.

yes, it failed, but it had a big, successful run.
for a lot of people, aol was the only way they could get internet access in their area.

i STILL know people who use aol's email. i wish they'd stop. there are even people my company deals with in other countries that use aol as their business account. they are doing millions of dollars worth of business a year and doing it via freaking aol.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to LaRRy LaGoMoRpH on Wed Oct 22 2014 03:26 pm

I don't think there are any wrong solutions here. BBSes are mostly irrelevan in society today (I still feel dirty and bad when I say that), making them m an expression of art than of utility. Obviously they offer functionality tha we all enjoy and embrace, but society generally doesn't. They view BBSes as this weird relic of the past, and we're all just "unwilling" to move forward and let go of our dear beloved hobby. That keeps most of us happy! But since it's an expression of art, more or less, then each of our implementations is good in their own way.

They may be largely irrelevant in society today, however, I may run counter to the norm in that I'm only somewhat in it for the nostalgia, but I'm not in the mood to write a manifesto. I'd say that if you average out the age of people on my board based on weighting the average based on time spent online
you'd find that the people on my board were born closer to 1995 than 1985.

I guess the lazy conclusion you could make from that is that there's a market there or maybe it's about art. People accuse me of that. I say what is not art?

I never though classic computers would ever increase in value or try to run something that was outdated when something 'better' was available. I didn't think Gameboy Music would be a respected art form or something with graphics like minecraft could take off. I was on twitter when it started pretty much, i think i tweeted something to the effect of this 'is the dumbest shit ever what can i type in 140 chars. stupid'

So I think there are people who are curious about bbs's. They want to see something come to life in their terminal, but many boards deliver a lifeless experience. If they wind up on one bbs after another that isn't engaging in the context of their pubescent minds they'll drop out. But these grew up with high quality streaming porn, so they aren't into that. They dig the ASCII.

Anyhow, this is not a manifesto, this is just an abbreviated ramble. Unlock your inner Picasso Peace out

ll morph G futureland.grudgemirror.com LaRRy LaGoMoRpH\-/
O
=M=
'not your average board check it out' /-\


---
■ Synchronet ■ Futureland.Grudgemirror.Com ** LIVE ** Music and

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Mro on Wed Oct 22 2014 08:47 pm

I can see that an integrated client would be an easy and slick way to
access an online service. But even as a user, I understand that different types of data/protocols often requires a different client. Also, for the internet, we have always had separate client apps. There are web browsers, FTP clients, IRC clients, news readers, email clients, etc., and they're
all separate apps. That concept is not new. There has never been any integrated "internet client" software.

Yes, for the internet we have had lots of protocols, and different apps to serve them. But, we're talking about BBSes, not the internet at large, and we're also talking about how BBSes are essentially still a dying breed. It's a hobby for most of us, but not a very popular one.

There has indeed been integrated internet client software in the past. Mozilla sprang from having HTTP/NNTP/SMTP/IMAP/POP/FTP combined. Before that there were
several packages that combined various protocols together to offer an integrated internet experience.

Things broke off into distinct apps because people came out with specialized clients that did things more interestingly that the integrated solution did.

But in our case, BBSes that is, there hasn't been any innovations that improved
individual client apps in a way of any significance. In fact, the BBSes that do
harness these net protocols, I'd say that their implementations are minimal -- they don't make use of all the advanced features that some of these protocols actually support.

I believe AOL used to have an integrated client back when AOL was its own proprietary service. Look at where AOL is now.. Does anyone actually use AOL anymore?

AOL was a private company, with private protocols, proprietary software, and a huge legal team. They came down because they tried to do it all at such a large
scale that it didn't work anymore. And yes, people wanted to use their own client apps, etc. But, that was because AOL was inflexible, it was proprietary in a time when the Internet was being crafted around open source and standard protocols (RFC, IETF, etc).

We're talking about potential open source protocols and maybe using existing protocols as well so that we enhance the existing offering to more people, to lure them into the BBS experience.

Look at Reddit. They thought all they needed was a website. They rejected the notion of building an iOS app. After several years of people using a very well designed third-party app, they admitted how nice it was and bought it outright.
Now it's their official iOS app, featured top in the app store. Why? Because it's popular and people like apps.

The distinction I want to make here is that I don't want to see BBSes "dumbed down" -- quite the contrary -- I want to find a way to make a unified client that offers the true BBS experience. This is something where Hotline/KDX failed, because they didn't allow the servers to distinguish themselves enough.
The art, bulletins, doors, etc didn't exist. I think we could do it, and in a way that doesn't take away the existing methods of interacting with the BBS.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 09:10 pm

In the last 20 years, as the internet has become more popular, there have always been separate clients for various protocols. There's Napster, web browsers, IRC clients, FTP clients, news readers, email clients - all separate apps. People have not been deterred from using the internet though. Granted, most people don't seem to be very aware that there's much to the internet beyond the web (and many people seem to equate the world wide web with the internet).

Definitely, the bulk of people don't really know or understand what FTP, NTTP, etc is. Over the years of IT work, I've had to explain SMTP, POP3, and IMAP to people -- and most develop glassy eyes and stare blankly. It's far too complex for them, and in most cases they don't really even care.

You're right. WWW is really what most people thought the Internet was. And for many people, the web still dominates their Internet usage, using it for browsing, research, email (web email providers like gmail/yahoo), etc.

But a lot of that changed when "apps" came about on their mobile phones. They don't even realize it but they're using a ton of internet technologies, and they're loving it. They don't care how it works, but they love to use it. Hundreds of millions of app users. Over a billion once you factor in Asia (China/India/etc), who are moving over to cheap android mobiles to replace their basic mobile phones.

Yeah, it might seem overwhelming at first to someone who isn't familiar
with it all.

Definitely. I've seen many BBS users come and check things out, think it's interesting, and then never come back due to how intimidating it is. We're in an age now where there are hordes of people who never even used a BBS before! They grew up using the Internet, but never experienced what a BBS has to offer,
so to some of them things are backwards and weird.

Yeah, I can see how something like that would be useful. I'm wondering how an integrated client would work on a mobile phone though - The screen is very small, so there isn't much room to display much information at the
same time. Even just a telnet interface could use the whole screen (and
I've seen telnet apps for mobile phones that do that).

Yeah, I bet there's lots of ways to do it. For a mobile app, I envision a menu of BBSes that you can pull up (favorites, and perhaps even a centralized directory that is self-updating) that you then click on to connect. Once connected, you get displayed ANSI screens just as you would when you telnet, excpt that they are formatted to fit the screen nicely, and is actually HTML or
a custom markup language that drives UI elements based on "smart ANSI" -- slightly augmented ANSI screens that have special markers to indicate what is clickable and what happens when you click.

You could almost call it "ANSI HTML" -- it's similar to HTML in terms of having
anchorable elements that can be clicked on, and there is some kind of markup syntax in the ANSI.

Synchronet has it's own ANSI format that uses @ codes to embed information. Imagine taking that up a notch.

Then, the keyboard is not used to drive the interface. The only time a keyboard
pops up is when the user needs to enter information, chat, etc.

But the interface won't be entirely ANSI driven. Some native elements will exist, using ANSI just to fill in the visual interface with flair so it feels custom and interesting. Chat would be a dedicated screen that you can switch to
in the familiar ways (slide out menu on left or via Tab Bar at bottom), which can be augmented with source ANSI, but is otherwise a full native interface. Same thing with message boards.

There's still a lot to consider, but I have some good ideas on the architecture
and how it would be implemented in a way that would reuse a lot of the existing
technologies and still offer enough customization to the sysop.

The topic of how to make BBSes more popular has come up on BBS forums from time to time, and it seems like a hard question to answer. I'll admit, I think it would be cool to see an integrated client app that could access
all the various parts of a modern BBS in one app. I'd be curious to hear peoples' ideas about how to make it a better experience than what we have currently though - Perhaps I'm just used to using the separate apps for the different protocols. I suppose having an integrated client would allow for easy simultaneous use of the protocols - playing a door game via telnet while downloading a file via FTP, etc..

Yep, I remember having discussions about how to save the BBS world back in 1997
when I was running The Phunc BBS while in school in Minnesota, and again before
that in the early 90s when I was running The Dark Knight BBS in California while in school. The Internet really displaced the need for them.

One thing the Internet hasn't really solved for me over all these years is a sense of community like BBSes did. There are tens of thousands of forums, but no sense of community. Interests are fractured all over the place, and it really drives up the ADD. Nothing is quite like what a BBS offered.

And exactly, it would be great to be able to do all of those things simultaneously. And it leads to higher engagement and thus more content creation.

By "the extension", I assume you mean Hotline? It seems that most modern BBS packages support the standard internet protocols (telnet, SSH, web, NNTP, etc.) - I'd imagine an integrated BBS client would have to support these protocols.

Well, just as SMTP was an extension that BBSes added, like Synchronet/Mystic, I
envision another extension/plugin created to support this unified client. I visualize it as a control channel where the client would connect, authenticate,
and send data about the user and BBS back and forth as needed. The chat would be streamlined into the connection, as would any other negotiation data.

Then, when files are queued to be uploaded/downloaded, the authentication token
would be used via the existing FTP server extension (which would need to be augmented to support the new token based authentication via the BBS) and the client would use FTP to transfer the files. Just as the BBS has it's own implementation of ftpd, the client would have it's own ftp client inside of it.
Same goes for the other areas of the board, with exception to maybe NNTP. The interface would not be explicitly telnet, but instead would be dynamically drawn by ANSI files being loaded back and forth via the control channel.

So Hotline itself wouldn't be used. That is just kind of an inspiration for the
thinking along these lines. Whatever this new client (and the additional protocol(s) created to support it) is called, that's what the extension can be called.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 11:27 pm

these clients are more widely avaliable and you can use them for many things.

bbses that require a specific requirment have ALWAYS spelled doom for that particular bbs software. it never ever worked out.

Oh right. But BBSes would still have the traditional means of access. This would just be an alternative way of connecting.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 11:29 pm

it's hard for a lot of us to step abck and look at what it is like for people that are new to bbsing or even technology. stuff that is second nature to me now was very alien and difficult back when i was in my young teens.

i remember when i was even afraid to run pkunzip and wouldnt do it even
when someone told me how easy it was and what to do exactly. i would drag and drop onto the executable.

Haha, exactly. When I first learned how to compile software that was downloaded
on a server that I was dialed into on a 2400 baud modem that was transfered to the server via FTP from a university server, it was mighty weird. All these strange things I had to type, etc. For me it was a mystery that I had to solve.
It was intriguing.

But all the people I told about it back then made funny looks.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: LaRRy LaGoMoRpH to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 09:39 pm

I guess the lazy conclusion you could make from that is that there's a market there or maybe it's about art. People accuse me of that. I say
what is not art?

Exactly -- I'm suggesting that most of the BBS experience today is artistic value. Not just BBSes with fancy ANSI art, or wild interfaces, but even the way
the message boards are crafted by subject, or the uniqueness of the content itself. It's an expression of sysops and users in some kind of harmony.

The Well for example was originally a BBS. If you aren't familiar with it, go back and read the story on it. There was this strong community (paid even) of people who were intense, intelligent, intellectual, raw, insane, etc... and a lot of drama unfolded behind the scenes. But it was like a piece of art, formed
by the expression of language and people. It didn't have any fancy ANSI graphics or amazing web designs, but it was still art.

The Well in today's existance is not the same place. Don't waste your money. But I still wish there was a community like it in our modern times.

I never though classic computers would ever increase in value or try to run something that was outdated when something 'better' was available. I
didn't think Gameboy Music would be a respected art form or something with graphics like minecraft could take off. I was on twitter when it started pretty much, i think i tweeted something to the effect of this 'is the dumbest shit ever what can i type in 140 chars. stupid'

Yeah, I think it's pretty amazing. I keep all my iPhones now, because I know one day they will be in a museum (oh wait, there's a bunch of early ones at the
Computer History Museum). Just as NES, SNES, Atari 2600, etc are nostalgic and worth more now, these mobile devices will be too. My son will want to show his son the games he played on the iPhone or the Kindle Fire or whatever.

Speaking of which, I really want to get my hands on an Atari computer and an early Macintosh. Maybe even a TI computer (I had one of those -- spent hours copying BASIC out of printed books, and then flip the switch and see it all go to the trash intentionally).

So I think there are people who are curious about bbs's. They want to see something come to life in their terminal, but many boards deliver a
lifeless experience. If they wind up on one bbs after another that isn't engaging in the context of their pubescent minds they'll drop out. But these grew up with high quality streaming porn, so they aren't into that. They dig the ASCII.

Yeah, 8-bit has really made a huge comeback over the years. Many of these people never experienced it the first time, but there's something raw, something magical, something artistic, and something abstract and fun about it that lures them in. Making BBSes more accessible could have the same effect if done right.

Anyhow, this is not a manifesto, this is just an abbreviated ramble.
Unlock your inner Picasso Peace out

I wonder what a non-abbreviated ramble looks like.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

I know this is a bit of a hot topic at the moment but I think most BBS Sysops need to as someone has said to take a step back for a min.....

As a sysop you know how it works over telnet, You know how to use your board inside and out.

I will give you an example. I gave my laptop to my girl friend and i loaded up putty and connected to my board and got her to sign up and use the board.

She couldent. She did not understand alot of it.
Then I got her to load up KDX and connect to my KDX system and bang no problem!

Chatting away to people and looking at the files now she is hooked.
I showed her the web interface for the BBS and she likes that to but loves the KDX system more.

Sadly thats what most of my users have done. I gave them a choice. They can log in by the two systems.... granted they dont get these messages )-: but have their own message base on KDX but this was an experiment to see what type of experiance the user wants.

People these days ( Sorry Most People) dont like a challange they just want it handed to them and for it to be super easy.
We need the BBS scene to be easy for people to use not just for us sysops that know what we are doing.

Somone hit the nail on the head by saying they only get a few users and they were just logging on to see if bbs's were still about....

I know Im at a T junction right now... Do i stay with the humble bbs or go with a KDX? Im running both at the moment just to experiment.

But i really do think we need an all in one just to get people started and get more users on our systems.


Raven...

---
■ Synchronet ■ MickyBay - mickybay.com

Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 23:34:34

I can see that an integrated client would be an easy and slick way to
access an online service. But even as a user, I understand that
different types of data/protocols often requires a different client.
Also, for the internet, we have always had separate client apps.
There are web browsers, FTP clients, IRC clients, news readers, email
clients, etc., and they're

you still are *not* looking at it like a regular joe.
get a regular person, not a computer guy and sit their ass infront of
a bbs and watch.

I guess that's true.. I can see how someone who doesn't use computers much would find BBSes a bit confusing.

I believe AOL used to have an integrated client back when AOL was its
own proprietary service. Look at where AOL is now.. Does anyone
actually use AOL anymore?

aol was fucking huge. and all it was, was a gui bbs that adopted newer technologies.

yes, it failed, but it had a big, successful run.
for a lot of people, aol was the only way they could get internet access in their area.

Yeah, I remember AOL being big back in the day.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 21:58:34

There has indeed been integrated internet client software in the past. Mozilla sprang from having HTTP/NNTP/SMTP/IMAP/POP/FTP combined. Before that there were several packages that combined various protocols together to offer an integrated internet experience.

I used to use Netscape Navigator in the mid 90s, and I remember them having a suite that included the browser, mail/news reader, and web page editor, but I don't remember it including an FTP client.

Even with that integration, it still felt like separate clients bundled together into a suite. It didn't seem like there was much integration to it, other than the fact that they were made by the same company.

But in our case, BBSes that is, there hasn't been any innovations that improved individual client apps in a way of any significance. In fact, the BBSes that do harness these net protocols, I'd say that their implementations are minimal -- they don't make use of all the advanced features that some of these protocols actually support.

I think it's good that modern BBS packages have implemented internet protocols though - I've thought of that as a way to bring BBSes into the modern era. I'd imagine an integrated BBS client could leverage that; otherwise a BBS would have to implement a new protocol for the combined experience.

We're talking about potential open source protocols and maybe using existing protocols as well so that we enhance the existing offering to more people, to lure them into the BBS experience.

What sort of open source protocols? Are you imaginging an existing open source protocol that could be adapted to modern BBSes, or a new protocol? It might take some time for BBS packages to implement a new protocol, but if an integrated BBS client could leverage the protocols that are already implemented (telnet, SSH, web, FTP, etc.), I'd think that would be ideal.

I'm still wondering how an integrated client might offer a better user experience than separate apps. I'm picturing a client that would have separate windows inside it (like a multiple-document interface app) for the various types of connections - telnet, FTP, etc. - but that's a lot like having separate apps. If the client software implemented a more friendly user interface for things like FTP, however, that might be an advantage.

As for a mobile app, I still think the limited screen space could be an issue as far as the user interface & user experience.

Look at Reddit. They thought all they needed was a website. They rejected the notion of building an iOS app. After several years of people using a very well designed third-party app, they admitted how nice it was and bought it outright. Now it's their official iOS app, featured top in the app store. Why? Because it's popular and people like apps.

Definitely, I'm not arguing against that type of app in general. I think specialized mobile apps can be useful. But I'll admit, I tend to use a web site over a mobile app, as it seems like mobile apps don't offer much that the web site doesn't already do, and mobile apps sometimes do things I don't like. For instance, Facebook's mobile app likes to sync your Facebook contacts with your phone, and I don't like that - so if I use Facebook on my phone, I tend to just use the Facebook web site.

The distinction I want to make here is that I don't want to see BBSes "dumbed down" -- quite the contrary -- I want to find a way to make a unified client that offers the true BBS experience. This is something where Hotline/KDX failed, because they didn't allow the servers to distinguish themselves enough. The art, bulletins, doors, etc didn't exist. I think we could do it, and in a way that doesn't take away the existing methods of interacting with the BBS.

I'm curious how the user interface/experience would be. I definitely have yet to see a good telnet client for Android that handles BBS ANSI well. There is one for iOS (iSSH) that handles BBS ANSI well, but it's only for the telnet/SSH side.

Nightfox

But a lot of that changed when "apps" came about on their mobile phones. They don't even realize it but they're using a ton of internet
technologies, and they're loving it. They don't care how it works, but

they

love to use it. Hundreds of millions of app users. Over a billion once

you

factor in Asia (China/India/etc), who are moving over to cheap android mobiles to replace their basic mobile phones.

Speaking of Asia, I've heard that BBSes are significantly more popular in
China - I've heard that due to China's censorship policies, the BBS scene
in China is popular due to its "underground" and less regulated nature. I've heard there is a thriving BBS scene in China.

Yeah, I bet there's lots of ways to do it. For a mobile app, I envision

a

menu of BBSes that you can pull up (favorites, and perhaps even a centralized directory that is self-updating) that you then click on to connect. Once connected, you get displayed ANSI screens just as you

would

when you telnet, excpt that they are formatted to fit the screen nicely,
and is actually HTML or a custom markup language that drives UI elements based on "smart ANSI" -- slightly augmented ANSI screens that have

special

markers to indicate what is clickable and what happens when you click.

You could almost call it "ANSI HTML" -- it's similar to HTML in terms of having anchorable elements that can be clicked on, and there is some

kind

of markup syntax in the ANSI.

That seems like it would require a whole new implementation for BBS
packages to adopt. That also sounds similar to RIP, which BBSes started to adopt in the 90s but largely abandoned in favor of the internet. Part of the BBS scene these days, I think, is to preserve the standard text interface
(i.e. Telnet) the way it was - I think that's part of the definition of a BBS as we think of them. Perhaps RIP could be leveraged more, though. Synchronet supports RIP, although I don't know of many Synchronet BBSes that make use of it. I don't think there are many modern RIP clients either - I think I heard that fTelnet/HTMLTerm supports RIP.

Synchronet has it's own ANSI format that uses @ codes to embed

information.

Imagine taking that up a notch.

Synchronet interprets those @-codes on the server side though.. The client doesn't see the @-codes, so I don't think those could be handled in the client (and I don't think it would make much sense to do so, as many of those @-codes refer to data that is only known by Synchronet, on the server side).

Then, the keyboard is not used to drive the interface. The only time a keyboard pops up is when the user needs to enter information, chat, etc.

But the interface won't be entirely ANSI driven. Some native elements

will

exist, using ANSI just to fill in the visual interface with flair so it feels custom and interesting. Chat would be a dedicated screen that you

can

switch to in the familiar ways (slide out menu on left or via Tab Bar at bottom), which can be augmented with source ANSI, but is otherwise a

full

native interface. Same thing with message boards.

This definitely sounds like a whole new protocol/system that would need to be implemented in BBS software. And if you're going to do that, then I think
that begs the question, why use old-school style BBS software at all?
Something like that could be implemented anew using web-based technologies
- Such a site could use a web interface along with JSON or other protocols to enable client apps to be created to interface with the site. Is your idea to move away from old-school style BBSing?

I've also heard the term "bulletin board" to refer to modern web-based
forum sites, powered by software such as vBulletin and phpBB. There's even a mobile app to interface with vBulletin sites called Tapatalk. A
community site could be implemented that way, but of course, that's not the type of BBS that most of us think of. I think there's still something
about the text-based style of an old-school BBS that's intriguing - plus, the text interface allows users to play the ever-popular BBS door games.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 07:30 am

I used to use Netscape Navigator in the mid 90s, and I remember them having a suite that included the browser, mail/news reader, and web page editor, but I don't remember it including an FTP client.

There were some completely integrated apps for DOS in the early days of the Internet. The names of them are escaping me right now, but it was pretty awesome. Also, the FTP client was (and still is) built into the web browser. You can go to ftp://site.com/some/path/file.zip and it will connect via FTP. It
generates primitive index pages, but you can still browse the FTP server as long as permissions allow it.

What sort of open source protocols? Are you imaginging an existing open source protocol that could be adapted to modern BBSes, or a new protocol?
It might take some time for BBS packages to implement a new protocol, but
if an integrated BBS client could leverage the protocols that are already implemented (telnet, SSH, web, FTP, etc.), I'd think that would be ideal.

A brand new open source protocol, and then leverage existing protocols as necessary. It will require some augmentation to the existing services though. For example, once the user authenticates over the new protocol and acquires a token, when using FTP to transfer files it would login a special username and use the token as the password. The FTP server would have to look up in the BBS database which account that is and whether or not the token has expired yet.

I'm still wondering how an integrated client might offer a better user experience than separate apps. I'm picturing a client that would have separate windows inside it (like a multiple-document interface app) for the various types of connections - telnet, FTP, etc. - but that's a lot like having separate apps. If the client software implemented a more friendly user interface for things like FTP, however, that might be an advantage.

It's clear to me that this unified client wouldn't be used by you :)

As for a mobile app, I still think the limited screen space could be an issue as far as the user interface & user experience.

That's always a concern for mobile apps. But as of September 2014, there are 1.3 million mobile apps available on the Apple App Store. I think that illustrates that people have solved such problems.

Definitely, I'm not arguing against that type of app in general. I think specialized mobile apps can be useful. But I'll admit, I tend to use a web site over a mobile app, as it seems like mobile apps don't offer much that the web site doesn't already do, and mobile apps sometimes do things I
don't like. For instance, Facebook's mobile app likes to sync your Facebook contacts with your phone, and I don't like that - so if I use Facebook on
my phone, I tend to just use the Facebook web site.

You, sir, are in the minority.

I'm curious how the user interface/experience would be. I definitely have yet to see a good telnet client for Android that handles BBS ANSI well. There is one for iOS (iSSH) that handles BBS ANSI well, but it's only for the telnet/SSH side.

It would be an entirely different but reminiscent experience of telnet. It would be a custom interface, using elements common in mobile and desktop applications, but harness the customization and uniqueness that ANSI offers a telnet experience. Things won't necessarily scroll across a black screen like you are use to with telnet. Instead, it would be more like a Napster client with bad ass ANSI graphics.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

On 10/22/2014 1:01 AM, Nightfox wrote:

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Tue Oct 21 2014 19:39:08

Kn> I sure would like to see BBSes have a Hotline/KDX-like extension to
Kn> them. It would be useful, just like NNTP and FTP is, except then you
Kn> could have an all encompassing client that can handle files, messages,
Kn> chat, and even ansi/rip and door games.

Kn> I know it would definitely encourage less technical users to use the
Kn> filebases.

It's a cool idea, but these days, I'm not sure I see much point in an integrated BBS client with the standard internet protocols that we use today. The advantage of using separate clients for the various protocols is that you can pick and choose what client software programs you want to use for each. You can use your preferred telnet client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc., rather than it being all included in one program which you might or might not like.

Package up Firefox with some addons:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/inforss/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/simple-mail/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fireftp/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bbsfox/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chatzilla/

Hand out your all in your client. :P

-Mindless Automaton
---
þ Synchronet þ Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 07:30 am

I used to use Netscape Navigator in the mid 90s, and I remember them having a suite that included the browser, mail/news reader, and web

page

editor, but I don't remember it including an FTP client.

There were some completely integrated apps for DOS in the early days of

the

Internet. The names of them are escaping me right now, but it was pretty awesome. Also, the FTP client was (and still is) built into the web
browser. You can go to ftp://site.com/some/path/file.zip and it will
connect via FTP. It generates primitive index pages, but you can still browse the FTP server as long as permissions allow it.

Ah yes, almost forgot about that.. Even today, web browsers understand
FTP.

What sort of open source protocols? Are you imaginging an existing

open

source protocol that could be adapted to modern BBSes, or a new
protocol? It might take some time for BBS packages to implement a new protocol, but if an integrated BBS client could leverage the

protocols

that are already implemented (telnet, SSH, web, FTP, etc.), I'd think that would be ideal.

A brand new open source protocol, and then leverage existing protocols

as

necessary. It will require some augmentation to the existing services though. For example, once the user authenticates over the new protocol

and

acquires a token, when using FTP to transfer files it would login a

special

username and use the token as the password. The FTP server would have to look up in the BBS database which account that is and whether or not the token has expired yet.

I'm still wondering how an integrated client might offer a better

user

experience than separate apps. I'm picturing a client that would

have

separate windows inside it (like a multiple-document interface app)

for

the various types of connections - telnet, FTP, etc. - but that's a

lot

like having separate apps. If the client software implemented a more friendly user interface for things like FTP, however, that might be

an

advantage.

It's clear to me that this unified client wouldn't be used by you :)

I can't say right now that it's not something I would use. It's probably something I'd have to see first, as you might have some ideas about it that
are not occurring to me right now. I suppose it's similar to how Apple releases something without there being much demand for it (i.e., the iPad),
and then people realize it's something cool and useful. Even though there
were tablet PCs around 2003-2004, there wasn't much talk of them until
Apple released their iPad. Then the Android tablets started appearing. I never really thought about such a thing before, but since those products were released, I can see how such a thing can be useful. Also, it's clear now that you're talking about implementing a new BBS protocol (which I wasn't really clear about earlier), so I'd be curious to see it before I make up my mind about it.

I'm curious how the user interface/experience would be. I definitely have yet to see a good telnet client for Android that handles BBS

ANSI

well. There is one for iOS (iSSH) that handles BBS ANSI well, but

it's

only for the telnet/SSH side.

It would be an entirely different but reminiscent experience of telnet.

It

would be a custom interface, using elements common in mobile and desktop applications, but harness the customization and uniqueness that ANSI

offers

a telnet experience. Things won't necessarily scroll across a black

screen

like you are use to with telnet. Instead, it would be more like a

Napster

client with bad ass ANSI graphics.

As something totally new, would it be compatible with standard ANSI? For instance, would it be able to run "legacy" BBS door games that use ANSI graphics?

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 12:54 pm

Speaking of Asia, I've heard that BBSes are significantly more popular in China - I've heard that due to China's censorship policies, the BBS scene
in China is popular due to its "underground" and less regulated nature.
I've heard there is a thriving BBS scene in China.

You are absolutely right. I've seen a lot of new BBS related support software out of China lately too -- new terminal clients, etc. I was using an interesting one on OS X, but it was in Mandarin. Otherwise it was a strong modern implementation!

That seems like it would require a whole new implementation for BBS
packages to adopt. That also sounds similar to RIP, which BBSes started to adopt in the 90s but largely abandoned in favor of the internet. Part of the BBS scene these days, I think, is to preserve the standard text interface (i.e. Telnet) the way it was - I think that's part of the definition of a BBS as we think of them. Perhaps RIP could be leveraged more, though. Synchronet supports RIP, although I don't know of many Synchronet BBSes that make use of it. I don't think there are many modern RIP clients either - I think I heard that fTelnet/HTMLTerm supports RIP.

Yes it would require BBS softwares to adopt the new protocol(s) by adding a new
extension. You have to remember, Synchronet and Mystic (and others) all did that when adding SMTP, HTTP, FTP, NNTP, finger, etc. They took some outside protocol and built an extension in the BBS to handle it.

RIP was really just a skinning with graphic files of the terminal session. It was not an all-in-one client protocol, and the timing was off. The Internet was
capturing everyone's attention. Had it not, maybe we'd have seen more use of it
eventually.

But timing is everything. Back then it was about interesting new software that focused on a particular aspect of the Internet and gave users a choice. Now we are inundated with choice, and people are moving back into a place of simplicity. They want things to just work. And they have good reason for it.

Synchronet interprets those @-codes on the server side though.. The client doesn't see the @-codes, so I don't think those could be handled in the client (and I don't think it would make much sense to do so, as many of those @-codes refer to data that is only known by Synchronet, on the server side).

Of course it does. But it doesn't preclude having an ANSI like format that sits
parallel to your regular ANSI files. In other words, you could create a new extension format (say .anx to reference ANSI-eXtended) that you embed your interface markup in. Then run it through a converter anx2ans and anx2asc as necessary (and this could even be done dynamically inside the BBS process so it's one less step for the sysop). The .ans/.asc files are delivered up to the telnet users, but the .anx files would go down the new protocol's wire to the all-in-one client.

I was only referring to @ codes as a reference, to give example of marking up ANSI files with external data. I was not suggesting that we'd piggy back on that existing implementation.

This definitely sounds like a whole new protocol/system that would need to be implemented in BBS software. And if you're going to do that, then I think that begs the question, why use old-school style BBS software at all? Something like that could be implemented anew using web-based technologies
- Such a site could use a web interface along with JSON or other protocols to enable client apps to be created to interface with the site. Is your idea to move away from old-school style BBSing?

Quite the contrary. I want to encourage people into BBSes. I don't want a whole
new system, I want the existing systems to extend to support a new protocol. I want the BBS feel but in a modern paradigm. I want the beauty of 8-bit art, ANSI menu systems, door games, message nets, etc.

I could argue that BBSes are almost like all-in-one servers, themselves. Unlike
today's websites that tend to focus on a particular thing, BBSes do a lot of things in a single server -- chat, forums, files, games, etc. Why can't we have
a client that hooks into all of that too?

If anything, I think this would bring an army of new users, unfamiliar with BBSes in general, and some of them will be encouraged to try the "nostalgic" forms of connecting after using the all-in-one. If released on the Apple App Store or the Google App Store or the Mac App Store -- people would discover the
client, download it, connect to a server and explore. They love 8-bit, so they'll come back. Later after chatting with people on several boards, they'll hear about telnet, ftp, etc.

I've also heard the term "bulletin board" to refer to modern web-based
forum sites, powered by software such as vBulletin and phpBB. There's even a mobile app to interface with vBulletin sites called Tapatalk. A
community site could be implemented that way, but of course, that's not the type of BBS that most of us think of. I think there's still something
about the text-based style of an old-school BBS that's intriguing - plus, the text interface allows users to play the ever-popular BBS door games.

I agree. I think you are forgetting that I want to retain the charm of BBSes. I
want the ANSI, the terminal for doors, and the things that make the 70s, 80s, 90s BBSes shine. Think of it as a hybrid.

Anyway, it's ok if this isn't for you. I know there is an army of longtime BBS sysops who want to keep things just the way they are. And that's ok... they have that right as sysop. There's no reason that the rest of us can't build it and eat our own dog food, because I see some bright possibilities.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Re: Hotline
By: Mindless Automaton to Nightfox on Thu Oct 23 2014 04:02 pm

Package up Firefox with some addons:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/inforss/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/simple-mail/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fireftp/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bbsfox/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chatzilla/

Hand out your all in your client. :P

LOL! That's absolutely nothing like my vision at all. But it did make me chuckle :)

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 02:55 pm

I can't say right now that it's not something I would use. It's probably something I'd have to see first, as you might have some ideas about it that are not occurring to me right now. I suppose it's similar to how Apple releases something without there being much demand for it (i.e., the iPad), and then people realize it's something cool and useful. Even though there were tablet PCs around 2003-2004, there wasn't much talk of them until
Apple released their iPad. Then the Android tablets started appearing. I never really thought about such a thing before, but since those products were released, I can see how such a thing can be useful. Also, it's clear now that you're talking about implementing a new BBS protocol (which I wasn't really clear about earlier), so I'd be curious to see it before I make up my mind about it.

Exactly! That's a good analogy and observation. I remember feeling weird that Apple announced an iPad. I already had a Mac and an iPhone, and I just didn't see the utility in having an iPad too. Sure enough, they ended up being remarkably successful, and I've owned two iPads since they've come out.

I can think of a lot of use cases that the unified client would benefit. I want
to upload files to my BBS, while simultaneous chatting with a user, talking on the network chat (irc), playing a game of BRE, and doing some administration (say, adding some new local message bases). Doing all of those things simultaneously right now would be difficult. You can't do all of the chat/door/admin stuff over a single telnet, so you'd have to telnet in multiple
times and fill up your nodes. You can't queue your uploads, nor do you have an easy way to set file descriptions on FTP uploads (you have to come back around and do it over telnet).

A client that allows you to do all of this stuff simultaneously would make life
easier for the sysop, the regular user, and people completely new to BBSes.

And then, if you don't like it, you just use the existing services.

As something totally new, would it be compatible with standard ANSI? For instance, would it be able to run "legacy" BBS door games that use ANSI graphics?

The way I vision it, it could. The BBS already knows what ANSI files are suppose to be used for what purpose. So the client could query (over the new protocol) for the main menu ansi, the bulletin ansi, the XYZ ansi, and then convert them into HTML that is embedded in widgets/panes (in OS X and iOS land this would be a UIWebKit instance). It would look just like ansi over telnet.

Most of the BBS interface would be structured with hard widgets that pulled in the converted ANSI files. To use doors, an embedded telnet/ssh client would connect out to a special port that is setup that then interprets some data that
comes in from the client (auth token, door requested, etc) and the door would start. The embedded telnet/ssh client would be in a widget in the client app and look just like a terminal session.

If someone sends you a chat message or broadcast, you get a notice in your client and you can switch to that pane (or maybe it can be toggled to pop up a new window if you even want). Your door is uninterrupted, running in it's own pane.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 07:30 am

As for a mobile app, I still think the limited screen space could be an issu as far as the user interface & user experience.

If an app could be designed to scan a menu for character groups such as {J} and others that could represent menu options, then the app could use that data to display a midi keyboard with ONLY those characters for the menu options of that menu. The enter key would likely always need to be displayed of of course. This would save loads of screen space, since you only need a full keyboard when typing a message.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Retro Archive - bbs.retroarchive.org

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Wed Oct 22 2014 10:25 pm

these clients are more widely avaliable and you can use them for many things.

bbses that require a specific requirment have ALWAYS spelled doom for that particular bbs software. it never ever worked out.

Oh right. But BBSes would still have the traditional means of access. This would just be an alternative way of connecting.

that's been tried before and failed too. it just doesnt work out.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 12:54 pm

Speaking of Asia, I've heard that BBSes are significantly more popular in China - I've heard that due to China's censorship policies, the BBS scene in China is popular due to its "underground" and less regulated nature.
I've heard there is a thriving BBS scene in China.

i went on a few of them and they are super popular with tons of people online. it was difficult to navigate because of the language barrier, but i was able to sign up and look around.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Hotline
By: Mindless Automaton to Nightfox on Thu Oct 23 2014 04:02 pm

Package up Firefox with some addons:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/inforss/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/simple-mail/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fireftp/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bbsfox/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chatzilla/

Hand out your all in your client. :P

i prefer chrome. i ditched firefox due to their memory hole issue that they never resolved. now i have a browser that doesnt eat up 3 gigs of ram after sitting for a few hrs.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Thu Oct 23 2014 15:37:48

That seems like it would require a whole new implementation for BBS
packages to adopt. That also sounds similar to RIP, which BBSes

Yes it would require BBS softwares to adopt the new protocol(s) by adding a new extension. You have to remember, Synchronet and Mystic (and others) all did that when adding SMTP, HTTP, FTP, NNTP, finger, etc. They took some outside protocol and built an extension in the BBS to handle it.

Quite the contrary. I want to encourage people into BBSes. I don't want a whole new system, I want the existing systems to extend to support a new protocol. I want the BBS feel but in a modern paradigm. I want the beauty of 8-bit art, ANSI menu systems, door games, message nets, etc.

Anyway, it's ok if this isn't for you. I know there is an army of longtime BBS sysops who want to keep things just the way they are. And that's ok... they have that right as sysop. There's no reason that the rest of us can't build it and eat our own dog food, because I see some bright possibilities.

I understand what you're saying now. I don't think it's something I wouldn't be interested in, as it sounds like an interesting idea. Do you really think BBSes need a new protocol for this though? Why not use the existing standards that are already implemented in modern BBS software? Synchronet and a couple other BBS packages already support telnet, NNTP, web, FTP, etc. - If you were to leverage those, the client could work with existing BBSes right out of the gate without the existing BBS packages having to implement a new protocol. If BBS packages need to implement a new protocol for this, adoption would take quite a bit longer. I imagine it could take significant time to implement
such a protocol, particularly since most people writing BBS software are only doing it on the side as a hobby these days rather than as a main job/focus. I think it's an interesting idea though - Expanding on what BBSes can offer can lead to some interesting things. Earlier today I was thinking about that and whether or not it would be interesting for a BBS to implement a more real-time instant messaging protocol. Synchronet, for one, already allows for users on different nodes to send messages to each other, but the recipient has to refresh their screen in order for the BBS to tell them they have a message - so it's not totally real-time or instant.

I could argue that BBSes are almost like all-in-one servers, themselves. Unlike today's websites that tend to focus on a particular thing, BBSes do a lot of things in a single server -- chat, forums, files, games, etc. Why can't we have a client that hooks into all of that too?

That's true, I think the argument could be made for an integrated client. This definitely reminds me of how some online services like AOL used to be back in the day. That style of integrated community system seems to have disappeared, and I think most users in the BBS community have been used to the way things currently are.

I also remember using a couple local BBSes running RoboBoard back in the day. I remember RoboBoard using a GUI protocol, like RIP, but it looked a lot better. I don't remember too much about it, but I think it may have been a more integrated experience as well.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Thu Oct 23 2014 15:49:08

I can think of a lot of use cases that the unified client would benefit. I want to upload files to my BBS, while simultaneous chatting with a user, talking on the network chat (irc), playing a game of BRE, and doing some administration (say, adding some new local message bases). Doing all of those things simultaneously right now would be difficult. You can't do all of the chat/door/admin stuff over a single telnet, so you'd have to telnet in multiple times and fill up your nodes. You can't queue your uploads, nor do you have an easy way to set file descriptions on FTP uploads (you have to come back around and do it over telnet).

A client that allows you to do all of this stuff simultaneously would make life easier for the sysop, the regular user, and people completely new to BBSes.

And then, if you don't like it, you just use the existing services.

I can see how that would be useful and make things easier for both users and sysops. The way you describe it, I think that's something I'd be interested in using - at least trying out.

Several times you've mentioned making a mobile app - Would you consider making a desktop app as well? I think a mobile app would definitely be useful for the reasons you've mentioned - many people are using all kinds of mobile apps these days. A desktop/laptop PC tends to have a lot more screen real estate though, which I think could be of great benefit for something like this.

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Mr. Cool to Nightfox on Thu Oct 23 2014 16:57:55

If an app could be designed to scan a menu for character groups such as {J} and others that could represent menu options, then the app could use that data to display a midi keyboard with ONLY those characters for the menu options of that menu. The enter key would likely always need to be

MIDI keyboard? How would music factor into this?

Nightfox

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Mr. Cool on Thu Oct 23 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Hotline
By: Mr. Cool to Nightfox on Thu Oct 23 2014 16:57:55

If an app could be designed to scan a menu for character groups such as {J} and others that could represent menu options, then the app could us that data to display a midi keyboard with ONLY those characters for the menu options of that menu. The enter key would likely always need to b

MIDI keyboard? How would music factor into this?

Nightfox

I read that too and figured he must have meant 'mini' and typed it wrong. I do want to figure out how to send midi data from my bbs to my sequencer since I've got a radio station running off of that (as oppose to an mp3 player with pre-recorded stuff) and the audio is malleable. But that has nothing to do with the Hotline topic, but I thought I'd let you know how I read the typo, and also that I think it would be cool to have a midi controller bbs app. For now it's a pipe dream.

ll morph G futureland.grudgemirror.com LaRRy LaGoMoRpH\-/
O
=M=
'not your average board check it out' /-\


---
■ Synchronet ■ Futureland.Grudgemirror.Com ** LIVE ** Music and

I read that too and figured he must have meant 'mini' and typed it

wrong.

I do want to figure out how to send midi data from my bbs to my

sequencer

since I've got a radio station running off of that (as oppose to an mp3 player with pre-recorded stuff) and the audio is malleable. But that

has

nothing to do with the Hotline topic, but I thought I'd let you know how

I

read the typo, and also that I think it would be cool to have a midi controller bbs app. For now it's a pipe dream.

That might be interesting.
About 6 years ago, I got to wondering how feasible it would be to send real-time MIDI signals over a network (and maybe even via internet). I
thought it might be cool to let someone play music real-time using a MIDI keyboard connected to one computer and have the MIDI data sent to another computer. I wrote a little program that could act as either a server to
listen for MIDI signals or as the client, to read signals from a MIDI
device and send those signals to the server, which would then play them via a MIDI synth on the server. I got it working, but as I suspected, random
network delays interfered with the timing of the MIDI signals. Ah well; it
was a cool idea to toy with.

Nightfox

Re: MIDI (was: Hotline)
By: Nightfox to LaRRy LaGoMoRpH on Fri Oct 24 2014 12:35 pm

That might be interesting.
About 6 years ago, I got to wondering how feasible it would be to send real-time MIDI signals over a network (and maybe even via internet). I thought it might be cool to let someone play music real-time using a MIDI keyboard connected to one computer and have the MIDI data sent to another computer. I wrote a little program that could act as either a server to listen for MIDI signals or as the client, to read signals from a MIDI
device and send those signals to the server, which would then play them via MIDI synth on the server. I got it working, but as I suspected, random network delays interfered with the timing of the MIDI signals. Ah well; it was a cool idea to toy with.

I think it would be pretty hard to create a rewarding experience triggering midi sounds over a network because of the latency issues you describe. In my instance, I think the first parameter I would change would be midi clock. Generally I'm running Ableton Live as my sequencer and since it's just a collection of malleable loops there's a bit of range accessible just by changing the tempo. As far as extending something like that goes, where you might be able to formulate a certain number of measures in a grid format to upload back into the sequencer so they come out in time, or being able to swap loops in and out might be the sort of things that would be possible were someone so inclined.

There's probably more thought that could be put into the idea, but I assume there will be latency and I would just avoid trying to make features where that would come into play. But the general idea is just to give my users some control over the radio station in unique ways.

cheers,
ll morph G futureland.grudgemirror.com LaRRy LaGoMoRpH\-/
O
=M=
'not your average board check it out' /-\


---
■ Synchronet ■ Futureland.Grudgemirror.Com ** LIVE ** Music and

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Mr. Cool on Thu Oct 23 2014 10:23 pm

MIDI keyboard? How would music factor into this?

Sorry that was a typo. A MINI keyboard, or it might be better described as a select list of letter keys based on the menu options on the screen. For example, if {O} is to log off, an O button would appear at the bottom of the screen, along with a few other keys based on the menu options on the screen, rather then a full keyboard. Such an app would be designed to take the screen output and identify menu items by looking for combos like /G {J} or things like that.


---
■ Synchronet ■ The Retro Archive - bbs.retroarchive.org

One thing the Internet hasn't really solved for me over all these years is
a sense of community like BBSes did. There are tens of thousands of
forums, but
no sense of community. Interests are fractured all over the place, and it really drives up the ADD. Nothing is quite like what a BBS offered.

Facebook is probably the closest thing on the Internet as the original BBS. The
main different being on Facebook, you accept and know friends/family, etc. BBSing most people don't personally know each other and may never even meet each other.

The discussions on BBS systems over the years is generally much better than any
Internet forum, Facebook, or anything I have ever seen.

The one thing that has changed in BBSing is the ability to communicate with other people much faster and with no long distance charges. The Internet did help BBSing with that issue.

I remember many years ago when there were around 40+ WWIV BBS systems in my local calling area alone. There are less than that probably in the entire world now.

One thing that will always happen no matter what, is change. I still like the retro-BBS style. I'm all for modern technology, but the original BBS setup still holds a good place in my heart - just like a classic car.

- Mark

--- WWIVToss v.1.50
* Origin: http://www.weather-station.org * Bel Air, MD -USA (33:1/3.0)
■ Synchronet ■ curmudge.hopto.org

I know Im at a T junction right now... Do i stay with the humble bbs or go with a KDX? Im running both at the moment just to experiment.

I had never heard of KDX until reading your message. It does look interesting.

In my opinion, I could see myself doing both. Just like having a modern day car and a classic car, I like them both in different ways.

- Mark

--- WWIVToss v.1.50
* Origin: http://www.weather-station.org * Bel Air, MD -USA (33:1/3.0)
■ Synchronet ■ curmudge.hopto.org

Re: Re: Hotline
By: Mark Hofmann to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 04:38 pm

One thing the Internet hasn't really solved for me over all these years is a sense of community like BBSes did. There are tens of thousands of forums, but
no sense of community. Interests are fractured all over the place, and
it really drives up the ADD. Nothing is quite like what a BBS offered.

Facebook is probably the closest thing on the Internet as the original BBS. The main different being on Facebook, you accept and know friends/family, etc. BBSing most people don't personally know each other and may never even meet each other.

The discussions on BBS systems over the years is generally much better than any Internet forum, Facebook, or anything I have ever seen.

The one thing that has changed in BBSing is the ability to communicate with other people much faster and with no long distance charges. The Internet did help BBSing with that issue.

I remember many years ago when there were around 40+ WWIV BBS systems in my local calling area alone. There are less than that probably in the entire world now.

i dont like to compare today's bbsing to bbsing of years ago. nor do i compare internet sites to bbsing.

there's just NO comparison. bbsing today is entirely different than it was years ago. of course, i prefer the older bbsing days.

facebook and forums are just a means to communicate. i dont feel like i'm doing anything bbs-like when i'm posting pics of a fat lady in walmart with backtits. ---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Hotline
By: Mark Hofmann to Raven on Thu Oct 23 2014 04:45 pm

I know Im at a T junction right now... Do i stay with the humble bbs or go with a KDX? Im running both at the moment just to experiment.

I had never heard of KDX until reading your message. It does look interesting.

In my opinion, I could see myself doing both. Just like having a modern
day car and a classic car, I like them both in different ways.

kdx had some huge communities, and there are still kdx servers running. unfortunately, the author was a bit crazy, and things fell apart.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Hotline
By: Mro to Mark Hofmann on Sat Nov 01 2014 16:23:00

There is a reason why people still call BBS'es with 300 baud dialup. I just don't know why I do it 8-)

---
■ Synchronet ■ Nostromo - 192.168.0.2

Re: Hotline
By: Raven to All on Tue Oct 21 2014 09:43 pm

Just going through some files on my system and came across Hotline.

Anyone still using this system any more?

There are still a number of Hotline servers and users... mostly on auto-pilot (like most BBSs).

If so does anyone know of any trackers.

hltracker.com
pc.hltracker.com
tracked.ath.cx
tracked.nailbat.com
hotline.jpn.ph
tracker.preterhuman.net
redlightdistrict.dyndns.org
saddle.dyndns.org
hotline.kicks-ass.net
supertracker.kicks-ass.net


---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
■ Synchronet ■ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Mro on Tue Oct 21 2014 07:39 pm

I sure would like to see BBSes have a Hotline/KDX-like extension to them.

Done.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
■ Synchronet ■ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to Nightfox on Wed Oct 22 2014 12:41 am

I'm not suggesting that we just take Hotline or KDX and build extensions into Synchronet or Mystic or whatever and use the existing clients. I'm

Oh, nevermind then. :-)

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
■ Synchronet ■ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to LaRRy LaGoMoRpH on Wed Oct 22 2014 03:26 pm

It might also be that there isn't a good terminal client for OS X anymore. SyncTERM is pretty awesome (it's the only decent one I've used), but it doesn't allow multiple windows (and thus, no connections to multiple bbses at the same time), nor does it let you drag and drop files to upload. There's no upload queueing. There's no window resizing. There's no way to use message bases and easily have a chat with a user logged in at the same time.

You can run multiple copies of SyncTERM (and thus get multiple windows) unles your OS prevents it.

The window can be resized... the regular SDL output allows integer scaling, and
the overlay output allows non-integer. SyncTERM supports the same video modes as CGA cards did. It's a BBS client, not a general purpose terminal.

As for using message bases and chatting at the same time, that's a feature for the BBS, not for SyncTERM... and some BBSs support that. Same for upload queuing (most/all support THAT).

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
■ Synchronet ■ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Hotline
By: Deuce to Knight on Sat Nov 08 2014 02:03 pm

Done.

Nice job.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Deuce to Knight on Sat Nov 08 2014 02:04 pm

Oh, nevermind then. :-)

Let's do both :)

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Knight to LaRRy LaGoMoRpH on Wed Oct 22 2014 03:26 pm

It might also be that there isn't a good terminal client for OS X anymore. SyncTERM is pretty awesome (it's the only decent one I've used), but it doesn't allow multiple windows (and thus, no connections to multiple bbses at the same time), nor does it let you drag and drop files to upload. There's no upload queueing. There's no window resizing. There's no way to use message bases and easily have a chat with a user logged in at the same time.

SyncTerm is, without a doubt, the best terminal for BBSing on the Mac. But I don't think any of the things you pointed out are really valid criticisms. SyncTerm has a full-screen mode, and I'm not aware of any terminal program that allows drag-and-drop uploads to a BBS.

My primary complaint with SyncTerm is that copy-and-paste is disabled in the Mac version. Other than that, I love it.

If you are looking for a terminal that is better integrated with OS X (using native file pickers, etc), iTerm is a good choice. It can be configured to give a decent ANSI experience, but it still falls well short of SyncTerm in that regard.

--Josh

////--------------------------------------------------
BiC -=- http://breakintochat.com -=- bbs wiki and blog

---
■ Synchronet

Re: Hotline
By: Kirkman to Knight on Wed Nov 12 2014 09:47 am

SyncTerm is, without a doubt, the best terminal for BBSing on the Mac. But
I don't think any of the things you pointed out are really valid
criticisms. SyncTerm has a full-screen mode, and I'm not aware of any terminal program that allows drag-and-drop uploads to a BBS.

I have used a couple of Chinese terminal clients that do support drag and drop (it's just an event that is caught and then integrated with the client's xyz-modem support). But they fall short in a lot of other areas.

If you are looking for a terminal that is better integrated with OS X
(using native file pickers, etc), iTerm is a good choice. It can be configured to give a decent ANSI experience, but it still falls well short of SyncTerm in that regard.

Yeah I use iTerm for everything else. But I don't consider it a BBS terminal client.

I may have to see if minicom or similar exists in MacPorts/Homebrew, because I use to love that terminal client.

Knight

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Hotline
By: Kirkman to Knight on Wed Nov 12 2014 09:47 am

My primary complaint with SyncTerm is that copy-and-paste is disabled in
the Mac version. Other than that, I love it.

Hopefully once I switch to SDLv2, copy/paste will be back in.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
■ Synchronet ■ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Hotline
By: Deuce to Kirkman on Thu Nov 13 2014 08:34 pm

My primary complaint with SyncTerm is that copy-and-paste is disabled
in the Mac version. Other than that, I love it.

Hopefully once I switch to SDLv2, copy/paste will be back in.

This would be awesome.

--Josh

////--------------------------------------------------
BiC -=- http://breakintochat.com -=- bbs wiki and blog

---
■ Synchronet

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Thu Oct 23 2014 07:30 am

I used to use Netscape Navigator in the mid 90s, and I remember them having a suite that included the browser, mail/news reader, and web

page

editor, but I don't remember it including an FTP client.

There were some completely integrated apps for DOS in the early days of

the

Internet. The names of them are escaping me right now, but it was pretty awesome. Also, the FTP client was (and still is) built into the web
browser. You can go to ftp://site.com/some/path/file.zip and it will
connect via FTP. It generates primitive index pages, but you can still browse the FTP server as long as permissions allow it.

Ah yes, almost forgot about that.. Even today, web browsers understand
FTP.

What sort of open source protocols? Are you imaginging an existing

open

source protocol that could be adapted to modern BBSes, or a new
protocol? It might take some time for BBS packages to implement a new protocol, but if an integrated BBS client could leverage the

protocols

that are already implemented (telnet, SSH, web, FTP, etc.), I'd think that would be ideal.

A brand new open source protocol, and then leverage existing protocols

as

necessary. It will require some augmentation to the existing services though. For example, once the user authenticates over the new protocol

and

acquires a token, when using FTP to transfer files it would login a

special

username and use the token as the password. The FTP server would have to look up in the BBS database which account that is andwhether or not the token has expired yet.

I'm still wondering how an integrated client might offer a better

user

experience than separate apps. I'm picturing a client that would

have

separate windows inside it (like a multiple-document interface app)

for

the various types of connections - telnet, FTP, etc. - but that's a

lot

like having separate apps. If the client software implemented a more friendly user interface for things like FTP, however, that might be

an

advantage.

It's clear to me that this unified client wouldn't be used by you :)

I can't say right now that it'snot something I would use. It's probably something I'd have to see first, as you might have some ideas about it that
are not occurring to me right now. I suppose it's similar to how Apple releases something without there being much demand for it (i.e., the iPad),
and then people realize it's something cool and useful. Even though there
were tablet PCs around 2003-2004, there wasn't much talk of them until
Apple released their iPad. Then the Android tablets started appearing. I never really thought about such a thing before, but since those products were released, I can see how such a thing can be useful. Also, it's clear nowthat you're talking about implementing a new BBS protocol (which I wasn't really clear about earlier), so I'd be curious to seeit before I make up my mind
about it.

I'm curious how the user interface/experience would be. I definitely have yet to see a good telnet client for Android that handles BBS

ANSI

well. There is one for iOS (iSSH) that handles BBS ANSI well, but

it's

only for the telnet/SSH side.

It would be an entirely different but reminiscent experience of telnet.

It

would be a custom interface, using elements common in mobile and desktop applications, but harness the customization and uniqueness that ANSI

offers

a telnet experience. Things won't necessarily scroll across a black

screen

like you are use to with telnet. Instead, it would be more like a

Napster

client with bad ass ANSI graphics.

As something totally new,would it be compatible with standard ANSI? For instance, would it be able to run "legacy" BBS door games that use ANSI graphics?

Night

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 21:10:53

The topic of how to make BBSes more popular has come up on BBS forums from time to time, and it seems like a hard question to answer. I'll admit, I think it would be cool to see an integrated client app that could access all the various parts of a modern BBS in one app. I'd be curious to hear peoples' ideas about how to make it a better experience than what we have currently though - Perhaps I'm just used to using the separate apps for the different protocols. I suppose having an integrated client would allow for easy simultaneous use of the protocols - playing a door game via telnet while downloading a file via FTP, etc..

We need Some Inovation of Teaching in School to use FTP/BBS/etc ...

to kid's to learn old Service

"... A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself."

---
■ Synchronet ■ SpaceSST BBS - Your Gateway for Usenet

Re: Hotline
By: spacesst to Nightfox on Fri May 19 2017 08:32 am

Re: Hotline
By: Nightfox to Knight on Wed Oct 22 2014 21:10:53

The topic of how to make BBSes more popular has come up on BBS forums f time to time, and it seems like a hard question to answer. I'll admit, think it would be cool to see an integrated client app that could acces all the various parts of a modern BBS in one app. I'd be curious to hea peoples' ideas about how to make it a better experience than what we ha currently though - Perhaps I'm just used to using the separate apps for the different protocols. I suppose having an integrated client would al for easy simultaneous use of the protocols - playing a door game via telnet while downloading a file via FTP, etc..

We need Some Inovation of Teaching in School to use FTP/BBS/etc ...

to kid's to learn old Service

"... A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love your

What I find with the BBS's I freqent today is that many aren't that
customised.

I've thought about creating a private BBS for use with my friends, so we can share stuff, chat and post without having our privacy invaded like on
Facebook. I'm guessing there isn't the data harvesting with what goes on
here like there is with Google and Facebook, which could be an advantage for some.


---
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Hotline
By: Boraxman to spacesst on Sat May 20 2017 04:38 pm

I've thought about creating a private BBS for use with my friends, so we can share stuff, chat and post without having our privacy invaded like on Facebook. I'm guessing there isn't the data harvesting with what goes on here like there is with Google and Facebook, which could be an advantage for some.

Actually Google datamines all our BBS message bases.
google pays no attention to my robots.txt file and still goes through my blocked folders.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Outwest BBS - outwestbbs.com - DOORS - Files -Dove-Net

Re: Hotline
By: Boraxman to spacesst on Sat May 20 2017 04:38 pm

Facebook. I'm guessing there isn't the data harvesting with what goes on here like there is with Google and Facebook, which could be an advantage for some.

all this stuff (dovenet)is being indexed by google bot and other search engines and there are multiple copies online.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Denn Gray to Boraxman on Sat May 20 2017 07:57 am

Re: Hotline
By: Boraxman to spacesst on Sat May 20 2017 04:38 pm

I've thought about creating a private BBS for use with my friends, so we share stuff, chat and post without having our privacy invaded like on Facebook. I'm guessing there isn't the data harvesting with what goes on here like there is with Google and Facebook, which could be an advantage some.

Actually Google datamines all our BBS message bases.
google pays no attention to my robots.txt file and still goes through my blocked folders.

Oh crap, is they because they are also available by HTTP?

---
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Hotline
By: Boraxman to Denn Gray on Sun May 21 2017 12:51 pm

I've thought about creating a private BBS for use with my friends, so we share stuff, chat and post without having our privacy invaded like on Facebook. I'm guessing there isn't the data harvesting with what goes on here like there is with Google and Facebook, which could be an advantage some.

Actually Google datamines all our BBS message bases.
google pays no attention to my robots.txt file and still goes through my blocked folders.

Oh crap, is they because they are also available by HTTP?

They hit my FTP server quite abit, they're the least of my worries.
all Google does is crawl around the web indexing stuff.
the hackbots try to hack into root, I doubt they ever really could, even if they did not much havok they could cause my little BBS lol.
I recently setup my ip.can and canned the worst offenders, then changed a few settings like only allowing to consecetive log ins by the same ip.
I also put a fun rejection message so when I block them and they try to hit my BBS I put a rejection message to make them think they're hitting a USA federal computer system.
They probably think they're A1 hackers when they see that lol.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Outwest BBS - outwestbbs.com - DOORS - Files -Dove-Net

Re: Hotline
By: Boraxman to Denn Gray on Sun May 21 2017 12:51 pm

Oh crap, is they because they are also available by HTTP?

yep
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Hotline
By: Boraxman to spacesst on Sat May 20 2017 16:38:18

I've thought about creating a private BBS for use with my friends, so we can share stuff, chat and post without having our privacy invaded like on Facebook. I'm guessing there isn't the data harvesting with what goes on here like there is with Google and Facebook, which could be an advantage for some.

Right, old system are not Compromise by Security Agency

"... Treat her like a lady and she'll always bring you home."

---
■ Synchronet ■ SpaceSST BBS - Your Gateway for Usenet

Re: Hotline
By: Kirkman to Knight on Wed Nov 12 2014 09:47 am

It might also be that there isn't a good terminal client for OS X

As mentioned, the native OSX terminal client is a little meager but can be replaced by iTerm. Both the ansi asci functionalities AND the fact that it supports some pretty cool visual themes make it a worthy alternative I frequently prefer to the native client.

Regarding Dragging and Dropping of files into a BBS client, that seems awefully advance for such an old technology. It would be like trying to build a holodec on the original Enterprise .. no ?

---
■ Synchronet ■ War Ensemble BBS - The sport is war, total war - warensemble.com