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.
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.
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.
Re: Hotlineis
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
usethat you can pick and choose what client software programs you want to
includedfor each. You can use your preferred telnet client, your preferred web browser, your preferred FTP client, etc., rather than it being all
internetin 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
waytechnologies). 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
that really encourages people to participate.queues,
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
the ability to throttle intuitively, the ability to chat and read messages while the file transfers occur, the ability to display ANSI as embeddedimages
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).But,
I know some thrive in their consoles -- I use to be one of these people.
Ican
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
implement these extensions.into
I'm not suggesting that we just take Hotline or KDX and build extensions
Synchronet or Mystic or whatever and use the existing clients. I'msuggesting
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 therather
client must be fully integrated. Each service uses the same authentication credentials, and things operate smoothly and from a central interface,
than 10 separate applications.away
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
they go. The BBS can negotiate the rest of the details to the client app.would
Also, there's no reason this would have to replace anything existing. It
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
---
þ Synchronet þ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com
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 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 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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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).
Yeah, it might seem overwhelming at first to someone who isn't familiar
with it all.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 internetthey
technologies, and they're loving it. They don't care how it works, but
love to use it. Hundreds of millions of app users. Over a billion onceyou
factor in Asia (China/India/etc), who are moving over to cheap android mobiles to replace their basic mobile phones.
Yeah, I bet there's lots of ways to do it. For a mobile app, I envisiona
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 youwould
when you telnet, excpt that they are formatted to fit the screen nicely,special
and is actually HTML or a custom markup language that drives UI elements based on "smart ANSI" -- slightly augmented ANSI screens that have
markers to indicate what is clickable and what happens when you click.kind
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
of markup syntax in the ANSI.
Synchronet has it's own ANSI format that uses @ codes to embedinformation.
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.will
But the interface won't be entirely ANSI driven. Some native elements
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 youcan
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 afull
native interface. Same thing with message boards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Hotlinepage
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
theeditor, but I don't remember it including an FTP client.
There were some completely integrated apps for DOS in the early days of
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.
openWhat sort of open source protocols? Are you imaginging an existing
protocolssource 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
asthat 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
necessary. It will require some augmentation to the existing services though. For example, once the user authenticates over the new protocoland
acquires a token, when using FTP to transfer files it would login aspecial
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.user
I'm still wondering how an integrated client might offer a better
haveexperience than separate apps. I'm picturing a client that would
forseparate windows inside it (like a multiple-document interface app)
lotthe various types of connections - telnet, FTP, etc. - but that's a
anlike having separate apps. If the client software implemented a more friendly user interface for things like FTP, however, that might be
advantage.
It's clear to me that this unified client wouldn't be used by you :)
ANSII'm curious how the user interface/experience would be. I definitely have yet to see a good telnet client for Android that handles BBS
it'swell. There is one for iOS (iSSH) that handles BBS ANSI well, but
Itonly for the telnet/SSH side.
It would be an entirely different but reminiscent experience of telnet.
would be a custom interface, using elements common in mobile and desktop applications, but harness the customization and uniqueness that ANSIoffers
a telnet experience. Things won't necessarily scroll across a blackscreen
like you are use to with telnet. Instead, it would be more like aNapster
client with bad ass ANSI graphics.
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.
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 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).
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.
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 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.
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?
As for a mobile app, I still think the limited screen space could be an issu as far as the user interface & user experience.
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.
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.
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
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 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?
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.
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
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 itwrong.
I do want to figure out how to send midi data from my bbs to mysequencer
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 thathas
nothing to do with the Hotline topic, but I thought I'd let you know howI
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 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.
MIDI keyboard? How would music factor into this?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 sure would like to see BBSes have a Hotline/KDX-like extension to them.
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
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.
Done.
Oh, nevermind then. :-)
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.
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.
My primary complaint with SyncTerm is that copy-and-paste is disabled in
the Mac version. Other than that, I love it.
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.
Re: Hotlinepage
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
theeditor, but I don't remember it including an FTP client.
There were some completely integrated apps for DOS in the early days of
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.
openWhat sort of open source protocols? Are you imaginging an existing
protocolssource 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
asthat 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
necessary. It will require some augmentation to the existing services though. For example, once the user authenticates over the new protocoland
acquires a token, when using FTP to transfer files it would login aspecial
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.user
I'm still wondering how an integrated client might offer a better
haveexperience than separate apps. I'm picturing a client that would
forseparate windows inside it (like a multiple-document interface app)
lotthe various types of connections - telnet, FTP, etc. - but that's a
anlike having separate apps. If the client software implemented a more friendly user interface for things like FTP, however, that might be
advantage.
It's clear to me that this unified client wouldn't be used by you :)
ANSII'm curious how the user interface/experience would be. I definitely have yet to see a good telnet client for Android that handles BBS
it'swell. There is one for iOS (iSSH) that handles BBS ANSI well, but
Itonly for the telnet/SSH side.
It would be an entirely different but reminiscent experience of telnet.
would be a custom interface, using elements common in mobile and desktop applications, but harness the customization and uniqueness that ANSIoffers
a telnet experience. Things won't necessarily scroll across a blackscreen
like you are use to with telnet. Instead, it would be more like aNapster
client with bad ass ANSI graphics.
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..
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Oh crap, is they because they are also available by HTTP?
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.
It might also be that there isn't a good terminal client for OS X
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 333 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 16:52:44 |
| Calls: | 574 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Messages: | 235855 |