Why isn't MBBS/WG made open-source/GPL?

[Andrew]

Hi, I haven't been following the newsgroup closely, but I thought I'd
join in and submit a commentary.

I'm one of the old timers whose first online experience was on a Major
BBS. I remember back in the days when 8 lines seemed like a lot. I used
to be a WG co-sysop for awhile too.

Anyway, it seems like there are a lot of hobbyists or others out there
who would like to keep the old software going. Let's face some real
facts: This software is obsolete. Period. Do the people at NetVillage
aka Glacticomm really think by holding on to the copyrights to this
software they're going to be making any money? I have some news for
them. The days of $2500 copies of this software being sold are long
over. The Internet made BBS's obsolete. These days Linux can do anything
WG could do Internet-wise but better and for free. If you license
holders are really so in denial to think BBS software still has
commerical vaule, I have some great "Internet appliances" to sell you:
some cool VT-100 terminals, just add a modem. $500 each.

I say liberate this software and let the hobbyists get some use out of
it and support it. Why not release the source code and make it GNU GPL?
At least make older DOS versions of the software freeware for non
commercial use.

I thought it would be fun to toy with an old copy of the software and
maybe set up a little BBS for some of my old bbs friends to log on to
via telnet or something. I downloaded WG 3.12 for DOS but I guess we
have to buy a license still in order to get an activation code or some
nonsense. Why not just make it freeware?

I read something on here about some other group buying the software and
supporting it with new costs. Even if they sell it for $1 a node where
is the market? Who is going to buy it? I guess there's still a few
places that run Major Mud and that still has a trivial following. As if
there aren't plenty of free muds on the Internet. Well I guess we'll see
what happens.

PS - If anyone out there has any old activation codes or copies of
WG/MBBS for DOS they'd like to donate to a hobbyist like me please let
me know. It's not like I want to set up a commercial system or could
make any money even if I did. I just miss the old system with glocbal
commands, Crosswords and teleconfrence with poker and all those good old
things.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Edmonds - PGP public key available for download on my homepage
E-Mail, wesly (at) mail (dot) com , http://www.cia-g.com/~wesly
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[DBP]

> I say liberate this software and let the hobbyists get some use out of
> it and support it. Why not release the source code and make it GNU GPL?
> At least make older DOS versions of the software freeware for non
> commercial use.

It will not be given out as long as the owners believe it has value. That is
why I think a new group is going to sell the product again and support it.

I doubt we will ever see it as free.

David Payer

(I have 2 WG 3.2 licenses and a webcast license)

[Webmaster]

The following are two FREE programs for the hobbiest.

http://www.copseystrain.com/welcome.html

http://netmation.com/rbbsdwn.htm

--
"Andrew" <REMOVEw...@mail.com> wrote in message news:3A62AC3E...@mail.com...

[Don Barr]

First off, the guys that bought Galacticomm paid a lot of money for it. For
them to just "give it away for free" is not an option for them. Worldgroup
to them is an asset, with plenty of value left in it, which is proven by the
simple fact that they DID sell plenty of those $1,995 24-user Worldgroups to
businesses and government entities. The fact that the hobbiest/sysop was
left out in the cold at that price doesn't really enter into it for them,
because they are looking at straight sales revenue/month model.

Secondly, Worldgroup, although it needs updating, isn't as obsolete as you
might believe. NetVillage looked at a lot of the ASP competition (and you
can too), and was able to demonstrate to its customers that Worldgroup and
its add-ons provide a lot of functionality when compared to other ASP
offerings out there. NetVillage is making money with WG as an ASP platform,
and probably will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

Thirdly, as an old BBS sysop, you better than anyone should know all the
uses to which a hobbiest / business / charitable organization / etc. can put
a BBS to use. We still have plenty of business customers going strong with
WG, using it for file transfer, forums, tech support boards, etc etc etc. -
thats why we
decided to take on the task of bring WG back to the masses. Yes, "the
internet is free" and yes, "Linux is free", but anybody that has to pay a
linux guy to develop
applications for them knows that certainly isn't for free. WG is a tool -
it has certain things it is good at and those are what you use it for.

Finally, I guess I have to point out that WG must have something that you
can't get out on the internet for free, because you are looking to get the
software and go to all the trouble to set a system up :)

Don

[Andrew]

Don,

Thanks for the reply. After reading several others posts I gathered
you're the leader of the new group that will be responsible for
supporting WorldGroup. I suppose on some level it's nice to know it will
still be supported for those hardcore users out there. And perhaps made
more affordable for the casual but semi-serious old sysops out there.

I have to disagree with your first premise. Just because a company paid
a lot of money to develop and market something doesn't mean it doesn't
become obsolete. Especially in the computer business we know this better
than almost any other business. I'm sure Microsoft spent millions of
dollars developing DOS and Windows 3.X. They charged good money for it
when it was at the peak of its product cycle and hopefully recooperated
their costs then. These days I don't know anyone who wants to buy
MS-DOS. The same is true for the end users as well. We've all spent
thousands of dollars on 286's, 386's and 486's that are now in a
dumpster somewhere. Hopefully we all got use out of those things back in
their days to make the expense worthwhile. I've heard calls years ago in
major PC magazines for Microsoft to make the source code for MS-DOS
available because there's many their world countries that could benefit
from it since they still use a lot of old hardware. Yet I guess as long
as Microsoft can make a buck selling one copy of the software to some
die hard DOS user that thinks his 386 is all anyone needs these days
they will.

I know of at least one local service povider that used to run a 20 or 30
node WG BBS system. They saw the writing on the wall and switched over
to being a pure ISP before the BBS business dried up for them. They
continued to run the BBS for awhile just for a few old time users. The
last I heard though they just shut it down because it wasn't worth their
time to bother to even maintain it. The old system is just sitting
around in a closet along with their $2000+ license and expensive
Glactiboards.

Now if you want to make the argument that WG still has some value and
isn't completely obsolete, then I'll take that into consideration. Since
you're obviosuly much more involved with the product than myself,
perhaps you know of a marketplace for it that I'm not aware of
personally. And if that's the case, more power to you and I hope you
make good profits. I read in another post you were talking about
charging because you needed to pay programmers to develop it. That may
be true in a closed source model but I don't suppose I have to tell you
making something open source obviosuly eliminates that problem. But I
know going open source as a business model is still somewhat uncertain
so if business profits is the goal I don't guess we'll see more software
companies that can make a profit going open source. In any event, if
there's still a market out there for this software, then best of luck as
I said. I guess at least for my local ISP who used to run WG they don't
have a use for it anymore since it's just gathering dust. I'll have to
see if they want to sell it to me cheap perhaps sometime.

Finally, your last point about there still being demand for the software
because I want it doesn't really hold up. I want it because I'm
sentimental about the software itself, not because I can't find any
alternatives that can do comparable things. I already know how to run
the software and it's a pain for the hobbyist to sit down and learn how
to set up a different system. Especially when I all I want to do is
tinker with it on an old 486 box out on my workbench. If I was really
that motivated to set up a BBS again with the services simialr to
WorldGroup/MBBS I'm sure I could find something comparable if I wanted
to spend the time. In any event I guess time will tell if there's still
a market. I guess there will always be a small niche out there and if
there's money to be made then that's great. I think there's still a few
Betamax fan clubs out there too.

Good luck to you Mr. Barr.. and I hope your new pricing model is
reasonable becuase I'd like to see hobbyists out there using it, if only
out of nostalgia.

--

[Raymond Wright]

Don,

 

I think everyone here has a valid point.  From the standpoint of a former MBBS Sysop, I know fully well the cost that went into putting up a decent bbs.  Years have passed since I ran my board, but now I find myself digging through my old files and trying to

restore the system I once had, but with one small difference:  this time it must be telnettable.  The original board I had featured only local dialup access simply because I couldn't afford the ICO or MajorTCP/IP at the time, and also because I wasn't generating enough income to support an internet feed. 

 

Today, the internet feed is no problem.  However, finding a copy of either MajorTCP/IP or the ICO is a literal nightmare.  I wouldn't mind paying someone for a copy, since I do know they paid for it themselves, as I did with my original MBBS software.  The problem?  NOBODY IS WILLING TO SELL.   PERIOD.  I know, because I've tried (and tried, and tried, and... well, you get the idea).

 

If somebody wanted a copy of my MBBS software, would I sell?  Yes.  And yes, I would continue to operate my own.  Why?  (As obviously, this seems to be a violation of licensing) -  simple:  The software is many years old, and the company who now holds the rights to it   1) no longer supports it,  2) no longer sells it, and 3) no longer cares about it or former customers who purchased it in any capacity whatsoever.

 

Should it be freeware?  No.  I believe that there should be some cost involved, as is only appropriate since it would cost the company some nominal amount to simply keep it around and keep licensing it out.  Would it be that much trouble to do so, given that there is so little market for it?  Not really;  why have all those file libraries (and, I remind everyone, *empty* file libraries) on the gcomm demo system just sitting there, doing nothing?  What harm could it do the company to have some periodic revenue from the sale of old software they have sitting around?

 

I am not even talking about WorldGroup here - just MBBS v6.25.  I do understand that it's easy enough to find other BBS packages, many of them freeware, that have all the features I am looking for.  But again, I am loyal to MBBS;  any other software would (for me) not be the same. 

 

I am not saying I wouldn't be willing to put up WorldGroup if someone made it available at an affordable price again.  But at this time, I am just looking for MajorTCP or the ICO for 6.25.  That would fulfill my needs wonderfully.  I'd be interested in any thoughts you might have on this.

 

[Kamakazi]

Ok, I can understand the reasoning why not to release WG under the GPL,
but WHY can't you get the *nix version of MBBS v6.25 and release it? I
for one have been searching HIGH and LOW for a copy of this, and it
seems that its lost to the world at this point. this is ONE software
title that I am wanting to add to my archives.

Kamakazi

[DBP]

"Kamakazi" <Kama...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A63A7BC...@mindspring.com...

> Ok, I can understand the reasoning why not to release WG under the GPL,
> but WHY can't you get the *nix version of MBBS v6.25 and release it? I
> for one have been searching HIGH and LOW for a copy of this, and it
> seems that its lost to the world at this point. this is ONE software
> title that I am wanting to add to my archives.
>

If you release 6.25 under the GPL along with the source, you then reveal how
to overcome the licensing scheme of WG.

Just get over it, it will not be released, it is valuable property to them.
You may not like that fact but they feel they can get something from what
they own.

David.

[Ray Finch]

Some thoughts:

Well let's see here. Over the last month and a half that Don has been
talking about bringing back WG there has been, what? about a dozen people
who have expressed interest.

Now I know that not very many people monitor this news group anymore, and
perhaps that may be why there seems to be so little interest in people
setting up a WG system again (thus far). One question: is there *really*
enough interest to launch WG has a full blown product again? Maybe, maybe
not.

I certainly hope that Don has have some backing on this project. Being
that there may or may not be any REAL interest in WG. One thing that's
for sure is programers don't come cheap and relaunching WG as a commercial
product (even with limited support) is going to cost some bucks.

All that aside for a moment: Why didn't Microsoft release MS DOS as open
source as mentioned in an earlier message? Afterall there are all those
third world countries using 286's and DOS is very obsolete anyway, right?
Very simple. Marketing. If MS had released the source code for DOS a
bunch of interested programmers would have improved it. They would have
made a 32 bit version that can support large drives. They may have even
put a full blown GUI on it (Much the same as when UNIX got X-Windows).
Then MS would be competing with a FREE and much improved product - tough
sell: You can buy our lastest and greatest (and bloted and less reliable,
and s l o w) product for only $189.00 or you can get a faster, more
reliable product that takes less hard disk space and runs faster even on a
486 and costs NOTHING. Which would you choose?

As long as Netvillage (or Don) feels that there is still some value in the
on-line (BBS style) market you are not going to see an open source version
of WG. I mean if you have an open free version of WG, what would
Netvillage have to sell? (See the MS example above.)

Case in point: The Apachi web server, it is (and always has been) open
source. Although there are a few commercial web servers out there Apachi
is the one that most large (and some smaller) companies use. Why? Just
*because* it is open source. It can be modified to fit thier needs and
it's free. As such, even though being open source has been a real help to
companies and ISP's, a web server is not a good commercial product. Even
Microsoft and IBM see this. Microsoft gives away thier web server with
every copy of NT/Win 2000 because it won't sell as a stand-alone product
(they tried). IBM had a special version of Apachi ported to thier
Netivity server line and is given away free with each server. Apachi is a
REALLY good product that a lot of people like but it's just not sellable.

This is not to say that WG won't someday be open source. I REALLY hope
that happens. I think being open source is just the "kick in the butt"
that would get BBSing popular again. We all know that ICQ and AOL instant
messaging don't even compare to the close personal feeling of a BBS. If
Don has a real deal with the Netvillage people and can sell WG at a
resonable price and make some money besides, more power to him.

But -

Unless Don has some kind of KILLER marketing plan that will reach a lot of
people, explain to them just what a BBS is and somehow get them really
interested in forking over some cash to run thier very own BBS (and not
step on the toes of Netvillage) honstly, I really don't see this
happening.

Being realistic here - even if people do start running thier own BBS's
again, will they be able to charge for access? I think unless you REALLY
have something special to offer you won't be able to charge any more than
about $5.00 a month, if that. Probably more like nothing. People don't
need a BBS for web/e-mail access any more so the days of charging $20.00 a
month are over - they are paying that to their ISP. If a person does
purchase a WG system, how many $5's is it going to take to pay for a
system, even at the reduced price that Don is proposing? (Whatever that
may be.) Again, being realistic, with the growth of the internet and all
it has to offer, running a BBS has become purely a hobby activity.

Now I haven't seen Don's marketing plan or his communications with
Netvillage and I'm not trying to belittle Don's efforts, if he can make it
work, great - I'll be standing in line to get my copy. But I think it is
not going to be an easy (or inexspesive) task to relaunch WG.

Comments?

My thoughts and 2 cents.

Ray

[Bulldog]

DBP <ad...@iowalink.com> wrote
> "Kamakazi" wrote

> > Ok, I can understand the reasoning why not to release WG under the GPL,
> > but WHY can't you get the *nix version of MBBS v6.25 and release it
> >

> If you release 6.25 under the GPL along with the source, you then reveal
how
> to overcome the licensing scheme of WG.

Didn't they substantially change the licensing scheme in one of the WG
3.x incarnations? It's been awhile, but I thought the way we installed 6
packs completely changed at one point. I don't think knowing Major 6.25
methods would do much harm these days.
That being said, it doesn't change your premis at all. Nothing will be
made GPL. First of all, why would they? I can see absolutely no benefit to
them for such a move. Heck, I know I wouldn't do it. Besides, when someone
ends a message with a call for "donated activation codes" as Andrew did, I
think the motivation is rather obvious.

BTW David, haven't heard from you in awhile. How are things going?

- Tommy

[Webmaster]

~ Internet Service Provider ~
"Ray Finch" <bab...@swcp.com> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.10.101011...@shimi.swcp.com...
> Some thoughts:

> But -
>
> Unless Don has some kind of KILLER marketing plan that will reach a lot of
> people, explain to them just what a BBS is and somehow get them really
> interested in forking over some cash to run thier very own BBS (and not
> step on the toes of Netvillage) honstly, I really don't see this
> happening.
>
> Being realistic here - even if people do start running thier own BBS's
> again, will they be able to charge for access? I think unless you REALLY
> have something special to offer you won't be able to charge any more than
> about $5.00 a month, if that. Probably more like nothing. People don't
> need a BBS for web/e-mail access any more so the days of charging $20.00 a
> month are over - they are paying that to their ISP. If a person does
> purchase a WG system, how many $5's is it going to take to pay for a
> system, even at the reduced price that Don is proposing? (Whatever that
> may be.) Again, being realistic, with the growth of the internet and all
> it has to offer, running a BBS has become purely a hobby activity.
>
> Now I haven't seen Don's marketing plan or his communications with
> Netvillage and I'm not trying to belittle Don's efforts, if he can make it
> work, great - I'll be standing in line to get my copy. But I think it is
> not going to be an easy (or inexspesive) task to relaunch WG.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> My thoughts and 2 cents.
>
> Ray

Ray...
I can see WG/NT being an excellent front end for a company running DSL.
It can handle security to the network, email, files, directories, and much more.
As Don said, they are now working on the "necessary" upgrades.
Its also an excellent addition to an ISP but here again it needs those important upgrades.
Dee

[Don Barr]

The Unix version of WG1 was a beta, and frankly, from what I've seen
NetVillage couldn't find the thing even if they wanted to. Most of GComms
old stuff is packed in boxes in NetVillage's warehouse down in Florida.
When NetVillage took over Gcomm, GComm was in the midst of bailing out of
their old offices -- all their old stuff went into the warehouse, and all
the new working stuff was set up. Unless somebody has a copy of the thing
somewhere, it is probably lost forever.

Since it was WG1 anyway, probably the best thing to do would be to convert
the latest version of WG over to Linux, but until we have somebody that
wants to take on that chore, it will have to wait.

"Kamakazi" <Kama...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A63A7BC...@mindspring.com...

[Don Barr]

The problem that everybody has (and will have) with 6.25 is that NetVillage themselves, despite having all of the assets of GComm, doesn't have the setup anymore to make

distribution copies of 6.25 software, and there isn't any way to convince them to go looking around all of the old GComm files to try to recreate the development environment.

I doubt they could even generate activation codes for 6.25 stuff anymore, and currently my activation code generation is limited to WG3+ (by license).

 

All I can do for the 6.25 users is set up areas on our board for them to help each other, and maybe set up an area where you folks can buy / sell old stuff.  I really have to try to get everybody on the same page, which means getting everybody into the same version of WG and then moving ahead.  I'm trying to price WG3.2 and future versions so that it is possible again for sysop/hobbiests to get in, as well as keeping the pricing consistent for our business customers. 

""Raymond Wright"" <quent...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:000d01c07f57$4a6529c0$1f00000a@wright...

[Ray Finch]

Isn't this what Netvillage has been trying to do already?

Ray

[Ray Finch]

Frankly the Unix version of MBBS was a bit of a disapointment in that it
was only a direct port to Unix. It didn't take advantage of ANYTHING that
Unix had to offer, such as Unix security, UserID and password vaidation,
telnet and FTP services, nothing.

I think at the time GComm bit off more than they could chew and the ISV's
didn't know how to program under Unix so the whole project sorta fell
apart. Kinda sad.

I think the other thing they may have realized (after they got very deep
into the project and started looking at making internet realted products)
is that when it comes to ISP type functions, Unix/Linux already has 90% of
their product in place - For Free. From that viewpoint it probably wasn't
a go idea for them to continue down the Unix path, commercially I don't
think it would have made much sense.

Talking about their old stuff: It may not be all lost, back in the V6.25
days anyway GComm *did* sell the source code. It wasn't cheap and I
imagine not a lot of people bought it but it *was* available. I would
think that there must be *somebody* out there beside Netvillage that has
it. Just a thought.

Ray

[Bulldog]

Ray Finch <bab...@swcp.com> wrote

>
> Talking about their old stuff: It may not be all lost, back in the V6.25
> days anyway GComm *did* sell the source code. It wasn't cheap and I
> imagine not a lot of people bought it but it *was* available. I would
> think that there must be *somebody* out there beside Netvillage that has
> it. Just a thought.

Nice try, but no dice. The source code they sold still required the ISV
to link to some proprietary DLLs, and the source to those many DLLs was not
provided. I have copies of every single piece of source code that Gcomm
ever offered for sale, and quite a bit that they didn't. (Not implying it's
stolen or anything, I just worked on a few projects that required
higher-than-normal access, and they sold me a few things that wasn't
normally avalable. Mostly dealing with the client side.) The biggest
reason I could never fix a few of the most annoying bugs in the client was
that even though they sold me all the client source code, the GSPCLI.DLL
library had the most troublesome bugs, and they wouldn't part with that.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the programmers that got
summarily canned may have had a copy of the "good stuff" on a zip disk
somewhere. That's probably entirely possible. I don't know how well they
protected things internally.

- Tommy

[Darryl Perry]

arn't you preaching to the choir here? We are the hobbiests in this
group. I don't think you will find any Galacticom execs reading the
posts here.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but MBBS and WG are NOT the
only BBS packages out there. If you want a free BBS package, all you
need to do is go to www.pcmicro.com/bbs and download your fill of free
packages.

Telegard, Mystic, Renegade, EleBBS, Tornado, Iniquity, Illusion, RBBS
are freeware packages that can do what you are looking for.

In article <3A62AC3E...@mail.com>,

--
-Regards,
Darryl Perry
Cyberia BBS|Sacramento, CA.|1:211/105
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8687

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

[Ray Finch]

Interesting. I always wondered how they kept from shooting themselves in
the foot by selling the source code. :-)

As far as internal security, well I know that most of the original core
programers left (i.e. where fired - I remember they called it "black
wednessday") shortly after Stryker passed away. Things went down hill from
there: 1-900 number support, higher 6 pack prices, longer waits for tech
support, etc. As things started getting worse for the customers, it seems
things started getting worse at GComm internally and more people left.
During that time internal security didn't seem like one of thier highest
priorities. I mean I'm not sure but back then the "feel" of things talking
to thier tech support and the like, things didn't seem very organized from
a bussiness/personal standpoint. So, I imagine it is very possible that
several of the core team might very well have full copies of the source
code.

Ray.

[Ray Finch]

> > purchase a WG system, how many $5's is it going to take to pay for a
> > system, even at the reduced price that Don is proposing? (Whatever that
> > may be.) Again, being realistic, with the growth of the internet and all
> > it has to offer, running a BBS has become purely a hobby activity.
> >
> > Now I haven't seen Don's marketing plan or his communications with
> > Netvillage and I'm not trying to belittle Don's efforts, if he can make it
> > work, great - I'll be standing in line to get my copy. But I think it is
> > not going to be an easy (or inexspesive) task to relaunch WG.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> > My thoughts and 2 cents.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Ray...
> I can see WG/NT being an excellent front end for a company running DSL.
> It can handle security to the network, email, files, directories, and much more.
> As Don said, they are now working on the "necessary" upgrades.
> Its also an excellent addition to an ISP but here again it needs those important upgrades.
> Dee

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble but, business wise, no dice here.

For years NT has been a pretty good front end for a company running DSL,
modems or what have you, but have you looked at Windows 2000 server? It
has security for the network, e-mail, web server, *secure* remote
connections to the network, password security to subdivide the network,
external connections to the network, extranets, and access to the
internet, single logon to get to the network, shared drives/directories,
"off-line" directory access, data encription, smooth and complete
integration with the Windows environment, the list goes on and on. For the
most part pretty much anything most businesses (large medium and small)
need to manage an internal network.

Being that I'm not really a Microsoft fan, this is hard to say,
but Microsoft did a really good job on Windows 2000.

So think about this: If a business is going to buy Windows 2000 (After
about first quarter of 2001 they will stop selling NT, if they haven't
stopped already) to mannage thier network, why would they also buy WG when
for bussiness purposes Win 2000 server already does everything WG does
and much much more *and* smoothly integrates with the windows enviroment
to boot?

Bottom line: WG is a hobby system - business has no need for it anymore
(actually from past Netvillage sells it seems business didn't want it in
the first place). Which do you suppose most businesses/Network Admins are
going to buy, Windows 2000 server from Microsoft or World Group from a
Florida company no one has ever heard of? Being realistic I think that
answer is pretty obvious.

Ray

[DBP]

"Darryl Perry" <dperr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:942o6e$lru$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> arn't you preaching to the choir here? We are the hobbiests in this
> group. I don't think you will find any Galacticom execs reading the
> posts here.
>

You know... I read this not because I want to run a BBS. I want a website
that allows specialized authentication and permissions to upload/download
files based on class/key info.

I like having webchat for quick interaction discussions.

I like threaded forums with a search.

I like Polls & Questionaires.

This has all the makings of a good business package. That is why I like WG.
Im not a gamer.

> Telegard, Mystic, Renegade, EleBBS, Tornado, Iniquity, Illusion, RBBS
> are freeware packages that can do what you are looking for.

For those who are satisfied with these things, why do they ask for WG?

David Payer

[Andrew]

Ray,

Many good points you made in your post. Interesting how you think MS
wouldn't want to relase the source to MS-DOS because you think people
would improve upon it. No doubtly true, and valid a few years ago.
There's no way today, however, that a group of open source programmers
could turn an old 16 bit O/S like MS-DOS into some kind of kernel based
32 bit multithreaded, multitasking O/S that can compete with NT/W2K
today. I did think of one niche market that MS might be holding out for.
The real time and small device market. I suppose with new "PC's on a
chip" coming out maybe MS thinks there's some market there. Of course
there's plenty of competition there even from Linux on that level. I
guess my best theory why they don't release the source is mostly PR: if
the public ever found out just how *bad* their code *really* was it
would make them wonder how bad Windows* *really* is today. I bet we have
no idea. Who knows...

As for the BBS niche and making money. I agree with you completely. Who
is going to pay to use a BBS anymore? I still have an account on The
Garbage Dump (dump.com) which was the first BBS I ever used back in
1991. Today the only use it has is a significant MajorMud following.
There's about a dozen or so users on it at any given time. I suppose
they pay a few bucks a month to make it worth running still. I can't
imagine them ever upgrading or expanding the system. In it's prime The
Dump had something like 80 nodes, mostly real modem dialups! Today it's
just the hard core telnet MajorMudders. I still have a bunch of credits
on there, and log on once and awhile in case I see some old timer I
know. However, when those credits run out, I won't be buying anymore.
I'll just let the account go dormant. The only other 2 local MajorBBS
systems in town I used to use I stopped buying credits on about a year
before they finally closed up shop. The 8 line niche WG BBS I used to
co-sysop on went out of business too a few years ago. This was back in
1996/97. Even back then the Internet killed the market for the BBS and
my good friends who ran it lost a lot of money on it. I do hope Don can
find a niche market to make the product successful. Except for a few Mud
boards, I don't see many WG/MBBS systems around anymore. I think the
only way Don will make any money is to sell a base WG 3.X system for $40
to hobbists with additional user 10 packs for like $30 or something.
Even at that I wonder how many copies will be sold. I do hope Don knows
of a niche market us old time sysops don't know about.

I applaud his desire and efforts to maintain a place on the web for
aftermarket trading and community support. Like someone else wrote, I
think if old copies of MBBS v6.25 with Major TCP/IP were available a lot
of hobbyists would use it. I know I would. I'm going have to check on
another local bbs I used to use that ran MBBS and WG. I know they had
tons of software including developer's kits. Maybe if they still have it
laying around Don might be interested in setting up 6.25 support area. I
know there has to be a bunch of old time sysops out there with this
stuff just sitting in a closet somewhere gathering dust. Wish more would
read this group. Cheers..

[Andrew]

PS Ray --

I just now noticed you use Southwest Cyberport. You must be an
Albuquerque local like myself. We probably have mutual friends. Were you
active on the local MBBS scene? I mentioned the Dump in a prior post. I
also know people from old Wizard's Realm BBS which is what I was
refering to in my other posts. Last I heard they just shut it down
because there was some glitch not worth their trouble to fix. I also
used to use Fantasy Express a lot (FEX). I know they sold it to 2
brothers who were old time BBSers. As far as I know they took that board
down too though. Just thought I'd check and see if we shared a common
past anywhere... my old handle was "wesly" on all those old boards.
Regards....

Ray Finch wrote:

> Comments?
>
> My thoughts and 2 cents.
>
> Ray

--

[Andrew]

Bulldog wrote:
>
Tommy,

The only reason I ended with a call for donations for activation codes
is purely sentimental. Do you really think because I'd like to play with
it for hobby reasons that I'm about to shell out good money for a
license? Sorry to disagree with you here, but my wanting to "play" with
it on a workbench hardly is indicitive of some ground swell of demand
out there to buy it. The only reason I ask for activication codes is
because it seems ashame to not let a few old time hobbyists tinker with
it. If someone offered me a full 256 node licensed copy of WG for free
with tons of licensed games for free, it's not like I'd suddenly be
setting up this pay BBS. I'd probably play with it for awhile until I
got bored. Maybe in another 6 months I'd fire it up again when I was
bored for a little while then put it back away. My request doesn't
indicate demand, just annoyance people can't play with obsolete software
for sentimental sake. FYI I also installed an old copy of DOS with QEMM
and Desqview I had laying around on an old 486 the other day for the
hell of it. If it didn't have it laying around already do you actually
think I'd go out and buy it from someone? Afraid not... oh well, I know
whining isn't going to change anything but it's amusing to talk about
all this stuff.

> them for such a move. Heck, I know I wouldn't do it. Besides, when someone
> ends a message with a call for "donated activation codes" as Andrew did, I
> think the motivation is rather obvious.
>
> BTW David, haven't heard from you in awhile. How are things going?
>
> - Tommy

--

[Ray Finch]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Andrew wrote:

> Ray,
>
> Many good points you made in your post. Interesting how you think MS
> wouldn't want to relase the source to MS-DOS because you think people
> would improve upon it. No doubtly true, and valid a few years ago.
> There's no way today, however, that a group of open source programmers
> could turn an old 16 bit O/S like MS-DOS into some kind of kernel based
> 32 bit multithreaded, multitasking O/S that can compete with NT/W2K
> today.

Very true. But if MS had released the source to DOS back then, people
would be expecting the source for Win 3.11 and Win 95 about now and they
would have the same problem :-)

Also too you would have an anoying (anoying to MS) hard-core DOS customer
segment that wouldn't buy *anything* Windows. And since Gate's goal is to
dominate the PC OS market... Well this simply *wouldn't* do!

I did think of one niche market that MS might be holding out for.
> The real time and small device market. I suppose with new "PC's on a
> chip" coming out maybe MS thinks there's some market there.

Actually there are a number of companies that have made DOS clones
designed to be run out of a ROM chip and even emlulate a virtual boot
drive on the ROM chip just for that nitch market. As far as I know MS is
not marketing DOS in this market. Thier answer to small device OS's is
Windows CE (Which by the way is doing very poorly).

> Of course
> there's plenty of competition there even from Linux on that level.

Some, but linux doesn't transfer to a ROM chip very well. However Tivo
(the digital video recorder that Sony and Phillips are marketing) run
Linux as in internal OS on an embedded harddrive. The big advantage to
embedding Linux is that there is no licensing.

>I
> guess my best theory why they don't release the source is mostly PR: if
> the public ever found out just how *bad* their code *really* was it
> would make them wonder how bad Windows* *really* is today. I bet we have
> no idea. Who knows...

Hehehe I think a lot of people *already* know how bad Windows is!

But I donno. While Windows is pretty bad (although Win 2000 is actually
pretty good - Only one crash in 4 1/2 months - not bad for a MS Windows
product!), DOS was actually pretty stable (assuming you didn't load any
TSR's). But think about it (Ok, think *way* back <grin>): When was the
last time you saw DOS crash (without TSR's loaded of course)?

<Snip>

> 1996/97. Even back then the Internet killed the market for the BBS and
> my good friends who ran it lost a lot of money on it. I do hope Don can
> find a niche market to make the product successful. Except for a few Mud
> boards, I don't see many WG/MBBS systems around anymore. I think the
> only way Don will make any money is to sell a base WG 3.X system for $40
> to hobbists with additional user 10 packs for like $30 or something.
> Even at that I wonder how many copies will be sold. I do hope Don knows
> of a niche market us old time sysops don't know about.

I'm not sure that is what Don is thinking, but I think that pricing is
about right. Like I said before, BBSing is purely a hobby thing now and
as such (being realistic) it needs hobby pricing or I just don't think it
is going to work. But if you can sell a LOT of copies at $40.00, well
maybe you just might make some decent money.

>
> I applaud his desire and efforts to maintain a place on the web for
> aftermarket trading and community support. Like someone else wrote, I
> think if old copies of MBBS v6.25 with Major TCP/IP were available a lot
> of hobbyists would use it. I know I would. I'm going have to check on
> another local bbs I used to use that ran MBBS and WG. I know they had
> tons of software including developer's kits. Maybe if they still have it
> laying around Don might be interested in setting up 6.25 support area.

Ditto that! Although I may have sounded harsh in my earlier posts, I
really do support what Don is trying to do. At the same time being a
former WG/MBBS sysop and seeing the BBS market die (along with
Galacticomm) before my eyes, I just hope that Don knows what he is getting
into and that he won't be able to sell WG for hundreds of dollars.

Ray

[Ray Finch]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Andrew wrote:

> PS Ray --
>
> I just now noticed you use Southwest Cyberport. You must be an
> Albuquerque local like myself. We probably have mutual friends. Were you
> active on the local MBBS scene?

Yuppers! I ran Babylon BBS for 6 years.

> I mentioned the Dump in a prior post. I
> also know people from old Wizard's Realm BBS which is what I was
> refering to in my other posts. Last I heard they just shut it down
> because there was some glitch not worth their trouble to fix. I also
> used to use Fantasy Express a lot (FEX). I know they sold it to 2
> brothers who were old time BBSers.

I was one of the brothers. We ran FEX for almost a year after we bought
it. I had wanted to put an internet feed to it and provide e-mail and web
surfing, but at the time it was just too expensive.

After a while it just didn't make any sense to keep running both boards,
one month I actually broke even but most of the time I just lost money.
This is not to say that I regreted running the boards - I didn't.
Actually running the BBS's was a fun time in my life and I kinda wish
those days where back (minus the finacial pressures of course).

> As far as I know they took that board
> down too though. Just thought I'd check and see if we shared a common
> past anywhere... my old handle was "wesly" on all those old boards.

I remember the handle "Wesly". I don't think I ever met you in person,
did you ever go to the GT's?

BTW (If you hadn't guesses already) My handle was Babylon.

Regards,

Ray

Babylon BBS Sysop
January 1994 to January 2000

[Darryl Perry]

In article <vX796.1868$GB1.4...@news.uswest.net>,

"DBP" <ad...@iowalink.com> wrote:
>
> "Darryl Perry" <dperr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:942o6e$lru$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > arn't you preaching to the choir here? We are the hobbiests in this
> > group. I don't think you will find any Galacticom execs reading the
> > posts here.
> >
>
> You know... I read this not because I want to run a BBS. I want a
website
> that allows specialized authentication and permissions to
upload/download
> files based on class/key info.
>
> I like having webchat for quick interaction discussions.
>
> I like threaded forums with a search.
>
> I like Polls & Questionaires.
>
> This has all the makings of a good business package. That is why I
like WG.
> Im not a gamer.

Then pay commercial prices for it if you that is what you feel it is
worth.

> > Telegard, Mystic, Renegade, EleBBS, Tornado, Iniquity, Illusion,
RBBS
> > are freeware packages that can do what you are looking for.
>
> For those who are satisfied with these things, why do they ask for WG?

You can ask for WG all you want, and you'll likely get it... if you pay
for it.

The original poster wasn't asking for a BBS package that was impossible
to get. He was asking for the source code for free. There's a
difference.

The person who started this thread wanted to play at setting up a BBS,
but didn't want to pay the WG prices. I merely pointed out that if he
wanted to play at setting up a bbs without paying the price for WG, then
he could simply use a program that was free.

This person went even further to ask for the code to be GPL'd. If he's
looking to play with BBS source code, there are many out there for free,
or for a nominal price. WWIV, RBBS, Tornado, Telegard 2.5, MBSE,
DayDream, etc all have the source code available.

I really get sick of people who whine when they can't get something for
nothing. If the owner of a product decides that there is value to their
product, he has the full right to charge for it. Pat Clawson is a prime
example of this. I don't like Pat's business practices for many
reasons, but one thing I will not fault him on is that he has the right
to charge what ever he wants for his products. Likewise, we have the
right to refuse to use and pay for his products.

If you like it enough to pay for it, then do so. If you don't, then
move on and don't whine about it.

[Bulldog]

Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com> wrote

> >
> Tommy,
>
> The only reason I ended with a call for donations for activation codes
> is purely sentimental.

>If someone offered me a full 256 node licensed copy of WG for free
> with tons of licensed games for free, it's not like I'd suddenly be
> setting up this pay BBS. I'd probably play with it for awhile until I
> got bored. Maybe in another 6 months I'd fire it up again when I was
> bored for a little while then put it back away.

You don't have to rationalize it by me, friend. Lots of people think
pirating software is fine and dandy. One thing I do find unusually ironic
is that on your resume on your website, you state as an objective "An
exciting career in a specialized area of law enforcement. Detective work in
fraud and computer crimes are of particular interest." Let's say in a few
years, you apply for a law enforcement job. They do a deja search on Andrew
Edmonds to see what you've been up to (Yes, very many companies do this).
They find your post saying you think it's ok to steal software (Over $15,000
worth, from your example), if you're doing it "just for fun, not for
profit".
Forget law enforcement, what about one of those software jobs in San
Jose or Redmond you mention an interest in. Think they'll be terribly
understanding when they see what you posted above? I doubt it. But, hey,
like I said, you're in good company.
Lest you (or any of your future employers who pick up this message)
think I am unbiased, I'll admit up front that as a past Galacticomm ISV, a
few of those "tons of add-ons" you say you'd run for free may very well be
some of mine, and I personally consider what you are aspiring to as
thievery.
Happy job hunting.

- Tommy

[Ken Maier]

The Unix version of WG was not a beta. We had a fully-working Unix-based
back-end that supported ASCII/ANSI/RIP and the Windows-based Worldgroup client.

Linux was our first operating system port -- just so happens that's what we did
our initial development on when doing the proof of concept for Gcomm.

-ken

(Ex-Director of Unix Division at Galacticomm)

[Ken Maier]

The Unix version was *mostly* a direct port, but the entire networking layer (even
for dial-up) was using the Unix operating system layer... It would have been cool
to use the Unix /etc/passwd account management at the time, but there were pros
and cons for each solution. By *not* using the Unix accounting features, the
Sysop could install the entire package as a single user (ie.. "bbs") and then have
all the user accounts handled by the Major BBS -- in some cases, this would have
been preferred rather than clogging /etc/passwd full of accounts. FTP and telnet
were handled by the Unix TCP/IP layer... e-mail was delivered via sendmail, and we
provided a shell escape via the "User-Defined Application" feature giving users
access to any app installed on the system (if the Sysop permitted it).

The ISV issue you mention... yeah, that was a tough one... it was hard to convince
ISV's to set up parallel development environments -- too costly and not a large
enough userbase to warrant it. The catch-22 was that the userbase wouldn't expand
until the ISV's took the leap to develop apps for the Unix version. Oh well.

Funny you should mention Linux... that was actually the operating system that we
did the first port on using the DOS-based developer kit you mentioned (story for
another day). Ended up we switched gears to get a Solaris port complete before
BBSCON that year.

Overall it's too bad the way the whole product ended up, but without sounding too
cliche, it had it's time and purpose. The Unix version and the work of the Unix
group many say was the catalyst for getting Internet features into the DOS
versions (much of the code written for the Unix version worked on the DOS server
product too)... who knows :)

Unix version a disappointment? Guess it depends on your perspective... but I'm
biased having been the Director of the Unix Division there ;-)

For those interested in this forgotten version, check out the only known "shrine"
to the Major BBS for Unix on the web:
http://www.secoast.net/~ken/gcomm/mbbsunix.htm

I haven't updated this site in about 2+ years... but if there is any interest I'll
see what else I can dig up and post on there. Let me know.

Later...

-ken

[Andrew]

Ray Finch wrote:

> Very true. But if MS had released the source to DOS back then, people
> would be expecting the source for Win 3.11 and Win 95 about now and they
> would have the same problem :-)

That's a good point, MS would rather stay propritary than open a can of
worms. I was actually very surprised when Netscape went open source. At
least until I realized it was a sinking ship and they had nothing to
loose. I guess when MS dominates everything why should they care anyway.
I heard a rumor a long time ago IBM was toying with the idea of making
PC-DOS open, but I guess there's never been any action there. I wonder
whatever happened to Quarterdeck and what was left of DR-DOS too. You'd
think one of these old versions would turn up open source someday.

> Some, but linux doesn't transfer to a ROM chip very well. However Tivo
> (the digital video recorder that Sony and Phillips are marketing) run
> Linux as in internal OS on an embedded harddrive. The big advantage to
> embedding Linux is that there is no licensing.

Embedding! Thank you, that's the word I couldn't think of to describe
what I was thinking about. Yea I thought there might be some use still
for DOS with embedded systems but perhaps. That's not something I
pretend to know much anything about.

As for Don, I guess we both said all there is to be said about it.
Perhaps he can differentiate between some corporate market he seems to
think is out there that's still willing to pay big bucks for interactive
group software. Then again I thought that market is why IBM spent a
fortune buying Lotus for Lotus Notes technology. And as someone else
said, I thouht NetVillage was after that market as well. So who knows
where that will leave Don. Like we said, perhaps cheap version of WG for
small time hobbyists and major mudders. I wonder if there's even any
ISV's still around to market games or other modules. I guess we'll all
be keeping a close eye on Don's efforts. I know we have both made
comments that sound harsh but the software business is a harsh business.
I hope we don't come off sounding like we're discouraging Don, I know
we're all for some type of continuation of MBBS/WG. I guess we're just
trying to be realistic though in a harsh market. The feast is over so
all that's left is a few scavengers but maybe there's still a little
meat left on some bone somewhere if they're lucky.

[Andrew]

Dude, you need to get a grip here. First off, if you go back and re-read
my posts, at no time did I ever ask for anything illegal. I never said I
wanted pirated copies or codes. I believed I asked if anyone out there
who was legitimately licensed wanted to donate and tranfer their license
to me by way of an activation code (and disks and manuals all the
better). I'm not stupid enough to solicit copyright infringement on a
public newsgroup. Maybe you shouldn't just assume that's what someone is
asking for. Let me rephrase it for you and anyone else out there so
we're clear here: If any legitimate licence holders of WG/MBBS who don't
use the software anymore would like to donate their legal copy and
licence to me for hobby purposes let me know. I'm not looking for cracks
or hacks.

By the way, friend, can you prove that every single peice of software on
your computer has a proper licence? You have all your certificates of
authenticaction, original disks and manuals and sales receipts for
everything on your computer? I'm not advocating copyright infringement
I'm just saying most people live in glass houses and shouldn't be
throwing stones. I have many old DOS programs archived on my computer
that I paid full retial for and am fully licensed to have but I long
since lost the original disks and manuals, that doesn't make me a
pirate. I'm just saying maybe you should be a little less pious next
time before you go out and accuse people of soliciting pirated software.
Also if you'd care to read again closely, I said HYPOTHETICALLY if
someone gave me a legit copy of WG with legit copies of games I still
woudln't be using them to set up a pay system. I don't have any of your
ISV games nor do I want them. I'm not a theif and if I was I woudln't be
stealing worthless software. Later..

--

[Ray Finch]

Thanks for setting us straight on the MBBS/Unix stuff Ken.

Ray

[Ray Finch]

> For those interested in this forgotten version, check out the only known "shrine"
> to the Major BBS for Unix on the web:
> http://www.secoast.net/~ken/gcomm/mbbsunix.htm
>
> I haven't updated this site in about 2+ years... but if there is any interest I'll
> see what else I can dig up and post on there. Let me know.
>
> Later...
>
> -ken
>

Interesting stuff on the web page. I can see that you guys put a lot more
work into that port that I had realized before.

Yes, if you have other stuff, I'd be interested in see it.

Laters,

Ray

[Bulldog]

Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com> wrote

> First off, if you go back and re-read
> my posts

I have. Maybe you should.

> I believed I asked if anyone out there
> who was legitimately licensed wanted to donate and tranfer their license
> to me by way of an activation code

No you didn't. Here, let me help you. "If anyone out there has any old
activation codes or copies of
WG/MBBS" Asking someone to donate a copy of software may be fine, provided
it's a legitimate copy. Asking them to donate just the activation codes for
software is pirating. You made it clear you don't care if you get a real
copy of WG or just the activation codes.

>Let me rephrase it for you and anyone else out there so
> we're clear here: If any legitimate licence holders of WG/MBBS who don't
> use the software anymore would like to donate their legal copy and
> licence to me for hobby purposes let me know.

That's more appropriate, but it's not "re-phrasing it". That's dropping the
"Hey, I'll take just the activation codes if ya got'em" part of your
request.

> By the way, friend, can you prove that every single peice of software on
> your computer has a proper licence? You have all your certificates of
> authenticaction, original disks and manuals and sales receipts for
> everything on your computer?

Of course not. I have the original disks for most everything I think, but
not the other stuff. You're not required to keep the manuals, certs or
sales receipts to run software legally. That's silly.

Good luck in Redmond.

- Tommy

[Ray Finch]

Alright guys, we all know the rules when is comes to legal and illegal
software. Take it to private e-mail already!!!!

[^SPuN^]

You know what, i completely agree with that... its nice to be able to have the older versions if that what you want but hey, if anybody wants to make any money or have any kind of support its gonna have to be with the latest version of the software. It's just too damn hard to support 2 or 3 people with an old version and then hundreds with a new version.

 

Perhaps a few of those developers would port the old addons that aren't avail for the newer versions of WG to the latest for you people who have them and want them. I for sure would be interested in doing that... just a matter of the price to get the developers package...

 

It's just not feesable to me to spend the $$$ on the developers package and charge only $$ or less for stuff that i think should only cost that much. Personally i don't like paying $$$ for something that a few users are going to use. Yes, there are addons out there that are worth every penny that you pay for them but there are some that arn't as well.

 

And to pay full price again for a mear upgraded version of the addon is just lunatic... So if i ever do get my hands on the developers kit you guys might be in for some interesting pricing and some crazy addons...

 

"Don Barr" <dhb...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:77196.2394$KE.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

[DH Barr]

Exactly - it just doesn't make sense for us to spend a lot of time on

trying to get old stuff back again when there is so much that needs to be done with the latest version.  All the current development really has to be focused on WG 3.2 -- if WG is to have a future, it has to start there.

 

 

[DH Barr]

The only one I ever saw was a beta -- do you have any idea what
ever happened to the version you were working with?

"Ken Maier" <k...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A664B61...@mediaone.net...

[Ray Finch]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, ^SPuN^ wrote:

<snip>

> Perhaps a few of those developers would port the old addons that aren't
> avail for the newer versions of WG to the latest for you people who have
> them and want them. I for sure would be interested in doing that... just
> a matter of the price to get the developers package...
>
> It's just not feesable to me to spend the $$$ on the developers package
> and charge only $$ or less for stuff that i think should only cost that
> much. Personally i don't like paying $$$ for something that a few users
> are going to use. Yes, there are addons out there that are worth every
> penny that you pay for them but there are some that arn't as well.
>
> And to pay full price again for a mear upgraded version of the addon is
> just lunatic... So if i ever do get my hands on the developers kit you
> guys might be in for some interesting pricing and some crazy addons...

Well then how about this for an idea (You listening Don?): Just give away
the developers kit!

A person could download it off a web page for nothing or get it on CD for
a small fee (like $10.00 to cover the cost of the CD and mailing).
Include the manual in electronic form, no need to spend money on printing.

This way you could get ISV's (and others) to make add-ons for very little
investment. The main problem GComm had with WG 3.x and the Unix versions
was the price and there wasn't enough ISV support and as such no one
wanted to buy software if there wasn't add-on moduals available.

If this new version has *any* chance of of getting off the ground it:

1. Has to be very very resonably priced (remember you are dealing with
hobbiest who likely will not be charging for access to their systems) and

2. You have to make it as easy as possible for third party developers to
make moduals for it. This means giving away the developer kit.

History should tell us that the life blood of WG/MBBS *is* the ISV's.

Ray

[Ken Maier]

We sold copies of it... and when it was available we had it running on
unix.gcomm.com -- I don't know how the product 'ended' its life after I left
Gcomm, but for posterity sake I have an unopened shrink-wrapped copy of the Unix
version sitting on my shelf.... maybe one day soon I'll crack it open and set it
up... laugh...

-ken

[Andrew]

Bulldog wrote:

> No you didn't. Here, let me help you. "If anyone out there has any old
> activation codes or copies of
> WG/MBBS" Asking someone to donate a copy of software may be fine, provided
> it's a legitimate copy. Asking them to donate just the activation codes for
> software is pirating. You made it clear you don't care if you get a real
> copy of WG or just the activation codes.

You're still assuming I meant any activation code, legal or not and
that's a false assumption. There's no overt request for stolen, cracked
or pirated codes. If someone has a legal license but lost the media,
transfering an activation code is a perfeclty legitimate means of
transfering the license. You're still just assuming I'd take any code,
legal or not. Well I'm sure we all know what happens when one
ass.......umes.....

I don't want to start a flame war here though. You can think anything
you want but I don't feel I said anything I need to apologize for.

Good luck in wherever you are too...

[Andrew]

Perhaps you and Don any people from NetVillage or whomever retains the
rights could check into the license issues of the Unix version. Perhaps
since you still have a good, clean copy it could be re-released or sold
as an unsupported product. I have a feeling that's another peice of
software many hobbyists out there would be interested in toying with.

Ken Maier wrote:
>
> We sold copies of it... and when it was available we had it running on
> unix.gcomm.com -- I don't know how the product 'ended' its life after I left
> Gcomm, but for posterity sake I have an unopened shrink-wrapped copy of the Unix
> version sitting on my shelf.... maybe one day soon I'll crack it open and set it
> up... laugh...
>
> -ken

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gregory Gooden]

Ken,

It's AWESOME to see ya lurking around in these groups these days! Sure is a
blast from the past.. Hope all is well over in "can't vote" land.. (grin..
joking.. I'm from Fort Lauderdale myself).

Gregory

"Ken Maier" <k...@mediaone.net> wrote in message

news:3A666CB1...@mediaone.net...

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[DH Barr]

Yes, I'm listening :)
We'll have to start a new discussion thread on this topic, because I have
some ideas I want to get some feedback on.

"Ray Finch" <bab...@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.101011...@inago.swcp.com...

[Ray Finch]

Ok, here ya go - a new thread :-)

Ray

[Ken Maier]

Have to admit I was surprised to still see this group kicking along... glad to
see there is still interest/traffic !!!! Hope all is well out there in CA...
more "power" to ya... :)

-ken

[Don Barr]

It IS an interesting idea. I'd be more interested in getting a copy of the
source for it though. If the unix version requires the WG 1 activation code
stuff, I'd also have to start digging around for that :)

"Andrew" <REMOVEw...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3A67ABAB...@mail.com...

[Anne Ahn O'Moss]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:34:39 +0000, Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com>
informed the readers of this newsgroup:

> I wonder
> whatever happened to Quarterdeck and what was left of DR-DOS too

All this talk about open source DOS and no mention of Caldera's Open-DOS?
You asked... and yes, that's what happened to DR-DOS following Novell's
brief ownership of the product. Alas, all this altruism was too good
(bad?) to last. Try as I might, I can no longer find a download site for
the OpenDOS product (it was there 2 years ago!) except for a few
German-based sites.

For more information see:
http://www.calderasystems.com/company/drdos.html .

See also: http://www.drdos.com/ and http://www.drdos.org/ .

I believe this outcome lends credence to what Don has been saying.

Back to lurking...

Not Anne

--
Help delete a spammer daily. (Think of it as cleaning and disinfecting the net's toilet.)

[lke...@techvangelist.com]

I have to say I wandered in here expecting to hear crickets. And yet,
here you all are! Amazing! How is everyone doing?

--Lisa Kelley

In article <3a684035$1...@news.newsfeeds.com>,

[lke...@techvangelist.com]

I have to say I wandered in here expecting to hear crickets. And yet,
here you all are! Amazing! How is everyone doing?

--Lisa Kelley

In article <3a684035$1...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
"Gregory Gooden" <ggo...@annex.net> wrote:

[jdel...@netvillage.com]

Greets,

Hi Lisa! :) Vince was telling me that some activity was kicking up
around here lately and I just had to see what was going on. Reading
this thread has certainly been giving me some retro-flashbacks akin to
those experienced by a Saturday morning cartoon junkie.

Being the absolutely last (yes, I was flying solo for a short while)
developer to leave Galacticomm/TotalE/netVillage, it was kind of sad to
see a few things that were only partially completed (or almost
completed) before I left. While they weren't working on a unix-flavor
port, I do remember they did have a few of them left over that they
sold without support to whomever wanted a copy. Aside from the other
interesting projects, like the ActiveX script keys add-on, the 32-bit
Client/Server engine and the port of the baseline (sans ActiveHTML
modules) was ported to Visual C++. I basically spent my last days
there putting together CD-ROMs of source code, utilies and
documentation for the individual responsible for the next generation of
Worldgroup 3.x maintenance. It was kind of sad to leave that arena;
when I left, they made me sign an agreement that I did not hold any
source to the product that was not normally available to developers.
(Funny how I was the only developer asked to sign such a statement.)
There are other vendors, as Tommy pointed out earlier, that do have
some of the sources that are not normally distributed in the
developer's kits. I do recall that the sources to the GCSP engine were
probably shared with one (maybe even two) other outside ISVs, but even
then I don't remember to whom they were given. The code for the GCSP
engine and the GSBL were very carefully monitored.

Well, nice to see a lot of familiar names again. Keep on
communicating. :)

Regards,

Joe

In article <9597s1$bq9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

lke...@techvangelist.com wrote:
> I have to say I wandered in here expecting to hear crickets. And yet,
> here you all are! Amazing! How is everyone doing?
>
> --Lisa Kelley
>
> In article <3a684035$1...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Gregory Gooden" <ggo...@annex.net> wrote:
> > Ken,
> >
> > It's AWESOME to see ya lurking around in these groups these days!
> Sure is a
> > blast from the past.. Hope all is well over in "can't vote" land..
(grin..
> > joking.. I'm from Fort Lauderdale myself).
> >
> > Gregory

<snip>

[Nate Hammond]

Lisa Kelly Lives!
it's Nate (infinetwork/palantir)

<lke...@techvangelist.com> wrote in message
news:9597s1$bq9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[Thrawn]

In alt.bbs Anne Ahn O'Moss <aomoss@yahoo_yikes_.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:34:39 +0000, Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com>
> informed the readers of this newsgroup:

>> I wonder
>> whatever happened to Quarterdeck and what was left of DR-DOS too

Well Quarterdeck got bought out by symantec, I took over for highend support for procomm at that time (about 2 years ago now) Symantec still makes procomm, but I don't work there anymore. As for great products like desqview - good luck, I have no idea where to get a copy now. I loved that program :)

Terminate and Telix were my have term packages.

DR-DOS isn't around anymore but PC DOS I still see every once in a while.

I lurk to, and back I go

Ray

[Webmaster]

"Thrawn" <thr...@sdf1.net> wrote in message news:68Yd6.28830$KP3.8...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...

Take a look at the catalog list on: http://www.consign.ex-line.com

Make an offer - reasonable offers are usually accepted.

[David Payer]

"Nate Hammond" <Na...@netvillage.com> wrote in message
news:959dcr$24g$1...@paxfeed.eni.net...

> Lisa Kelly Lives!
> it's Nate (infinetwork/palantir)

AKA the Netvillage guru.

(Hey Nate, whats this new stuff with Don Bahr licensing the software... any
official comments?)

David Payer

[David Payer]

> (Hey Nate, whats this new stuff with Don Bahr licensing the software...
any
> official comments?)
>
> David Payer
>

I see your post from before. Sounds promising. Why not open a demosys
conversation on the topic.

David P.

[Kamakazi]

digging through my 3.5" archives, I found my copy of qemm/deskview. it
was a dual install thing. when I used to use it it was QUITE nice...
used it to run a 4 node renegade BBS, BEFORE I invested in MajorBBS
v6.25.

Kamakazi

--
Klatu barada nikto

[Nate Hammond]

trying to reset up demosys this week...

David Payer <david.payer.no-spam-thanks!@ia-omni.com> wrote in message
news:t7h70le...@corp.supernews.com...

[The Smiling Bandit]

I just want to know when BRAWL will be installed on the Demosys so I can
kick your arse!

-Andrew

[The Smiling Bandit]

being that it was given out to a small number of developers, you'd also
have to see if those developers bothered to keep it around (if indeed it
is 'lost' at netvillage)... i know from my experience, i just hit a time
where the old code of worldgroup software was just not worth keeping
around.

in addition to that, you'd really have to consider what could be done
with the GCSP code today that couldn't be written better (not that the
GSBL was bad, just that it had its time and place) today, in visual c,
c#, java, or any number of other languages out there. Basically, you'd
have to think that if you sat down to design a GSBL today, you wouldn't
come out with the same thing.

At some point, technology does expire, except for "pig" thank god for
jungle.net :-)

-Andrew

[Bulldog]

<jdel...@netvillage.com> wrote

> Hi Lisa! :) Vince was telling me that some activity was kicking up
> around here lately and I just had to see what was going on.

Ken, Lisa and now Joe? With Vince lurking in the background? Who'da
thunk it! Good to see a few of the old names around!

- Tommy

[dj wyldeone]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:34:39 +0000, Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com>

wrote:

>Ray Finch wrote:

>That's a good point, MS would rather stay propritary than open a can of
>worms. I was actually very surprised when Netscape went open source. At
>least until I realized it was a sinking ship and they had nothing to
>loose. I guess when MS dominates everything why should they care anyway.
>I heard a rumor a long time ago IBM was toying with the idea of making
>PC-DOS open, but I guess there's never been any action there. I wonder
>whatever happened to Quarterdeck and what was left of DR-DOS too. You'd
>think one of these old versions would turn up open source someday.

Actually DR-DOS is open I think. DR-DOS was bought by Novell and then
sold to Caldera.

[DH Barr]

I've got tons of stuff I'm looking through, and I do see a lot of things
that look like older activation code schemes. I haven't actively been
looking for WG1 activation code stuff, but I think I'll find a bunch of it
when I do.
I would dearly love to see the whole thing reworked for Visual C - Borland
is as dead as a doornail, and having to work in Borland 5 is about as
entertaining as a dentist's chair. I think it would also go a long way
towards enticing add-on development as well.
There is a version of WG modified for ODBC, which uses Access tables instead
of Btrieve databases. NetVillage uses it now, and it works fine. Only
problem I can see with bringing it to Sysops is that none of their add-ons
will work with it unless they are modified, which is not a small problem.
As far as I know, Nate has the only add-ons that work with it (so far
anyway).

There is still plenty going on, and a load of work still to do :) but at
least we've got somebody working on it all again.

Don

<jdel...@netvillage.com> wrote in message
news:95qioc$ibu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Greets Don,
>
> I am genuinely interested in seeing further development in
> Worldgroup to some extent. The unix version of WG certainly does
> require the WG 1.0 activation code scheme. If you do indeed have the
> source trees to MBBS and WG 1.0 for everything, internal and external,
> you should indeed have what you need.
>
> Before I left netVillage, I was sure to burn a CD for Nate Hammond
> that included all the modern code as well as all the old important code
> and information that included documentation, text files, source code,
> old source code archives, etc. I didn't have long to prepare the
> entire kit, but I think I provided sufficient archived data that
> covered even the old encryption schemes from the earlier WG days.
>
> One of the things I've wondered for a long time, is if the software
> will ever be properly re-written aside from the original port that I
> had done to VC++ for more modern development. Of course, I did this a
> proof of concept without conditional compilation for Borland or even
> the various Unix platforms. BTW, the ActiveX Script Key Module seemed
> to do very well in its beta for WG 3.12... did it ever make it to
> market? Does anyone even know what they can do with it? :)
>
> Don, did you ever run across the code which ODBC that was used to
> replace Btrieve? We actually had a Tessier othello module ported to
> use it that worked wonderfully. On that note, was the 32-bit GCSP
> engine ever incorporated into a 32-bit client? It was quite speedy and
> worked well for the 5-connection video broadcaster that shipped with
> Webcast.
>
> Don't mind my ramblings, I'm just being a bit concerned about the
> babies that I left behind, wondering if they're being taken care of
> well... Probably why Ken still cares for his child and Lisa does for
> hers. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe
> a/k/a JFalcon
>
> In article <bfZa6.6661$QM2.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,

> "Don Barr" <dhb...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> > It IS an interesting idea. I'd be more interested in getting a copy
> of the
> > source for it though. If the unix version requires the WG 1
> activation code
> > stuff, I'd also have to start digging around for that :)
>
>

[The Smiling Bandit]

While we all care about the code you left behind, as you noticed, some
of the greatest things ever released to extend Worldroup was released in
the last year, meanwhile nobody cared.

Dialsoft's Dial-ASP.. perhaps the best to extend worldgroup's
interaction with the internet since Major-TCP/IP, and it sold what, 3
copies? Netvillage's (or whatever it was at the time) similar work was
never released (but we all got to see the demo audit trail!)

ActiveX Script Keys.. similarly opened up a HUGE part of what was
possible to make the interaction better (especially if you tied it to a
text variable which did a key check, which could then run an asp script
haha).

ODBC Database replacements (both from Netvillage and third party work
done on it) never released, never finished up exactly... people know
nobody cares.

Unfortunately, those of us who care about it (more in a hobby, or just a
love for an interesting product) aren't enough a market, at least, IMHO.

It will certainly be interesting to see what Nate does with what he has,
but as I've said time and time and time again -- you can't just slap a
new name on a product that needs serious updating and expect that it can
fit in somewhere.

-Andrew (still waiting for a Palm Client)

> > It IS an interesting idea. I'd be more interested in getting a copy
> of the
> > source for it though. If the unix version requires the WG 1
> activation code
> > stuff, I'd also have to start digging around for that :)
>

[David Payer]

> It will certainly be interesting to see what Nate does with what he has,
> but as I've said time and time and time again -- you can't just slap a
> new name on a product that needs serious updating and expect that it can
> fit in somewhere.
>
> -Andrew (still waiting for a Palm Client)
>

Andrew, all these good things were not embraced because people saw the
company itself was going nowhere. Who wants to build on something when the
company itself saw no clear future for itself?

If the company committed to go forward with a product it supported, people
would have used this stuff and bought into it.

David P.

[The Smiling Bandit]

at the time, the company hadn't canceled any product lines, it hadn't
stopped supporting it any more than it had ever in the past... people
didn't embrace this type of stuff because they weren't hitting the right
market.

There was more development done in the last days of Joe than had been
done in teh last 5 years, yet hardly anybody was intersted.

The market just wasn't there.

-Andrew

[lke...@techvangelist.com]

Alive and well and living in South Florida! I haven't gone anywhere.
Howinthehell are ya?

--Lisa

In article <959dcr$24g$1...@paxfeed.eni.net>,

[ldke...@my-deja.com]

Re: your last comment Joe. It's very much the truth... we all put a lot
of ourselves into our time at Gcomm. Isn't it amazing how we (ex-
gcommers) still think of ourselves that way (as ex-gcommers)?

--Lisa

In article <95qioc$ibu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jdel...@netvillage.com wrote:
> Greets Don,

> > It IS an interesting idea. I'd be more interested in getting a copy
> of the
> > source for it though. If the unix version requires the WG 1
> activation code
> > stuff, I'd also have to start digging around for that :)
>

[phil pt]

It seems to be that Netvillage.com stole and is using Major BBS Source Code. If you telnet to demo.netvillage.com their menus is the same as Major BBS. Netvillage does not own Major BBS source code.