Welcome to RBBS-PC Conference

But first, an editorial......

RBBS-PC and it's source code is distributed under the "Userware"
concept.  RBBS-PC is "...the sure and present proof that software
which is shared becomes better than it was."  RBBS-PC and the
distribution of RBBS-PC's source code is an act of faith not only in
users but in the concept of "users helping users."  RBBS-PC's open
architecture has always encouraged users to modify RBBS-PC to meet
their own requirements.  Further, RBBS-PC has also encouraged users to
share their modifications via .MRG files to RBBS-PC in the finest
tradition of "users helping users."

RBBS-PC's open architecture even allows for those who want to write
RBBS-PC "utilities" or "clones" providing that they observe both
RBBS-PC's copyright and the limited license under which RBBS-PC is
distriubted (i.e. they don't steal the RBBS-PC source code or parts of
the RBBS-PC source code and put it in their product).

RBBS-PC has become the defacto "industry standard" for PC-based
bulletin board systems.   Many products exist that have incorporated
the "RBBS-PC standard" within themselves without violating or stealing
RBBS-PC's source code.  Products such as these (that really are the
work of their authors!), deserve to be encouraged and their authors
rewarded for their efforts.

These products' originality can be easily determined because they all
have at least one of the following two characteristics:

    1.)  they are written in another language (i.e. not BASIC!) or
    2.)  they have an internal file structure and logic that is       
  entirely different from RBBS-PC's.

However if someone offers you a bulletin board software package for
the IBM or IBM-compatable PC which has the following characteristics:

    1.)  it is offered without source code;
    2.)  it is written in BASIC (i.e. gives BASIC's error codes);
    3.)  it appears to have almost the same internal logic/flow and/or
         external file structure as RBBS-PC;

ask yourself why they want you to be an accomplice in destroying the
"user helping user" concept that RBBS-PC is based on?  Is this some
sort of "bait and switch" approach wherein they will later start
demanding that you pay them for future versions or help?  If the
perpetrators either won't, can't, or don't provide you with their
"products" source code -- ask yourself why?  These type of "RBBS-PC
clones" soil themselves and their advocates while victimizing those
who are associated with them.

Tom Mack



Msg #  5700 Dated 03-26-86 17:26:40
 From: JERRY SHIFRIN
   To: SYSOP
   Re: EDITORIAL

After reading your editorial, I read thru the entire message
BBS, expecting to see a lively discussion. Not ONE message!
Well now, I'm out of time, but will call back to discuss.

Msg #  5702 Dated 03-27-86 02:15:23
 From: JERRY SHIFRIN
   To: SYSOP
   Re: EDITORIAL

As the SYSOP of a PCBoard based system, I can't help but believe
that your editorial is directed at least partly at people like
me. Since I object to being referred to as an accomplice in some
nefarious scheme to destroy the users helping users philosophy,
I'd like to reply to a couple of points.
1. My reading of the PCBoard documentation, is that it is in
part modelled on the RBBS command structure, in order to
simplify the use of the systems by the large number of people
used to RBBS. To me, that does not mean that RBBS was
plagiarized. I hope you don't think that every program using
windows is a rip-off of Smalltalk.
2. I understand that PCBoard has been totally rewritten from
since its original release - this makes it unlikely  to be using
any RBBS code (in case it ever did - I have no idea).
3. The fact that PCBoard is released without source, means that
you can log on to a PCBoard system anywhere and know how to use
it. This also means that there are far fewer chances for
problemss to occur due to code hacking and insufficient testing.
4. Considering how much I've paid for the rest of my hardware
and software, I'm pretty willing to pay a reasonable amount for
a solid, fast, debugged, and supported BBS.
I don't mean to knock RBBS - it certainly has a large enough
following, but I personally prefer PCBoard, and feel that your
comments are a bit unfair.
(I really don't think you can conclude anything at all about a
product just because it's written in Basic.)
As an aside, on the users helping users concept - I run an open
board (no fee required) dedicated to the exchange of information
about the Forth programming language. Feel free to check it out
at 703-442-8695.


Msg #  5703 Dated 03-27-86 07:32:54
 From: SYSOP
   To: JERRY SHIFRIN
   Re: (R)EDITORIAL

I appreciate your comment on the editorial.  Let me respond to each of
your four points:
1.  You feel the editorial is directed at PCBoard.  Obviously as a
    PCBoard SYSOP you are best able to evaluate if PCBoard fails to
    meet the originality test outlined in the editorial --
      "1. ...written in another language (i.e. not BASIC!) or
       2. ... (has) an internal file structure and logic that is
          entirely different from RBBS-PC's."
    HOST-COMM and PC-HOST are both very good BBS systems written in
    the BASIC language that have entirely different file structures
    and internal logic.
2.  You "understand that PCBoard has been totally rewritten from since
    its original release - this makes it unlikely to be using any RBBS
    code (in case it ever did - I have no idea)."  By inference from
    your statement I can only assume that at one time you believe that
    PCBoard was simply a pirated copy of RBBS-PC with modifications.
    Also that the PCBoard "authors" got original later through the
    re-write process.  Finally, you have no idea if either is really
    true because, as I say in the editorial, "...the perpetrators either
    won't, can't, or don't provide you with their "products" source
    code."  If what you appear to believe about PCBoard's pedigree is
    true, the only analogy that I can make is that you would also
    believe that if a theif stole from you and invested the money
    profitably, then the profits rightly belong to the theif.
3.  You state that since PCBoard's source code is denied you, you have
    the right to expect:
      a. "...you can log on to a PCBoard system anywhere and know how
         to use it."
      b. "...there are far fewer chances for problems to occur due to
         code hacking."
      c. "...there are far fewer chances for problems to occur due to
         ...insufficient testing."
    Regarding 3A, above, apparently you object to the tailoring that
    RBBS-PC allows SYSOP's to do to make it reflect their own predi-
    lictions.  As far as 3B, above is concerned you apparently don't
    believe in the tenate that "software which is shared becomes
    better than it was" (i.e. "users helping users").  3C apparently
    is your belief that products that don't release source code are
    better tested than products that do release source code.  All I
    can say is I wonder if the "authors" of PCBoard agree that you
    can hold them libel for damages you incurr due to any problems
    you have in their product.
4.  You state that you are "willing to pay a reasonable amount for a
    solid, fast, debugged, and supported BBS."  Apparently the $195/
    year support fee & $50/update is "reasonable."  Larry Jordan's
    T-COMM (301)428-7931 might be a better alternative for you.
    T-COMM meets all your requirements (including having an RBBS-PC
    command structure), is efficient (i.e. it is written in "C"),
    is supported by its author, and is more reasonable than what you
    currently are willing to pay.  Additionally T-COMM is original!
Jerry, you have too good a board to be victimized by anyone who would
steal the work of others and claim it as their own -- especially since
you have other alternatives -- Larry Jordan's T-COMM or Rich Schinnell's
PC-HOST (both of which I can personally recommend as fine, original
products).
Enjoy....
Tom Mack


Msg #  5706 Dated 03-27-86 16:25:46
 From: RUSS ZACCARI
   To: SYSOP
   Re: RBBS AND YOUR EDITORIAL

I think that over the years and while following the progress of RBBS
from 12.1 when I first became VERY active in telecommunications and
bulletin board you have changed.  When I first became a co-sysop I was
whole-heartedly for the IDEA of public domain and the PRODUCT of rbbs.
In following its progress through MANY version changes and MANY patches
written by people who I have become acquainted with in these years I
have become, shall we say against the way that you follow the IDEA.  The
idea of placing RBBS in the public domain was one such that everybody
could and would make it better.  I now will reference a patch made by
Mark Seiden namely the late, great 12.5b9.  This patch had some very
nice ideas which you chose a SELECT FEW that YOU liked and put them in
your code and trashed the remainder.  This patch had a very large
following as does RBBS.  There are even some people that fought tooth
and nail to change to 13.1 because they felt it a step down from where
they were with 12.5b9.  Then there was a programmer from Annapolis named
Vince Castelli who wrote a WONDERFUL patch for 12 and rewrote it for
13.1 and is in the progress of rewriting it for 14.1 because he got run
over by the wheels of RBBS.  These are just a few that have been
spited by your interpretation of the IDEA.  Always remember it is to
make the product BETTER not more TOM MACKish...

In closing I would like to defend products like PC-Board.  They did not
steal YOUR rbbs ideas.  They used something that was familar and took
it to a level that they felt was higher than RBBS.  This FITS INTO THE
IDEA!  I think that in your documentation where you praise the company
that RBBS keeps you do need to include all who have spend hours, days,
months, and years to bring things to people at a FASTER, EASIER and MORE
EFFECTIVE rate.

In your editorial you mention BASIC, well if many of us programmers out
here had our choice we would write in only TURBO and/or C.  Basic is a
nice language for beginners but there are many faster and easier
languages to use.

Think about these comments and I will be interested in your response.
And by the way:  I would appreciate a better response then the previous
responses that I got from you which totaled to one stating "I already
know about it".  There are still countless suggestions and ideas that
you have yet to address....

Like I said you have changed over the years...  Unfortunately not all
for the good of the others.

Russ Zaccari,SysOp, Chesapeake Message Center (301) 956-3396


Msg #  5707 Dated 03-27-86 17:02:40
 From: DAVE CHAPMAN
   To: ALL
   Re: EDITORIALS

  I've noticed some of the comments out here on the RBBS vs.
"Rip Off" BBS's and thought I'd add a word....

  I've been familiar with RBBS since CPC9 (egads!) and have been
amazed at the evolution of this "product".  Even though I've not
had an active role in the development of the source code, I hope
I've helped "spread the gospel" on RBBS-PC.  I DO know of the
time the "committee" must put into fixes (and the MASSIVE
undertaking of converting the code into a reasonable structured
form);  I don't know how some beta testers (like my friend Bob
Cecchino in Va. Beach) can allocate the time... but they do.
It really irks me to see stolen ideas (particularly, stolen
ideas that are used for a profit); imitation is the sincerest
form of flattery, but not if you take credit for it.

  If the shoe fits.....

                          David C
                          Co-Sysop NARDAC Norfolk RBBS


Msg #  5710 Dated 03-27-86 23:02:20
 From: SYSOP
   To: RUSS ZACCARI
   Re: (R)RBBS AND YOUR EDITORIA

Russ, I agree that over the years one of us has changed.  Apparently it
centers on what you define as the "IDEA" of making RBBS-PC's source code
available so (in your words) "...everybody could and would make it
better."  You say that you are "...against the way that (I) follow the
IDEA."

Apparently you are against the fact that I have been faithful to "...the
MANY version changes and MANY patches written by people who (you) became
acquainted wiht" by always maintaining the same line numbers in all 23
versions so that the merges that others had made would be neither
obsoleted nor negated.  You site Mark Seiden's 12.5B9 merges as an
example of "...a patch (that) had some very nice ideas which (I) choose
a SELECT FEW that (I) liked and put them in your code and trashed the
reminader."  Did you know that Mark Seiden helped beta test CPC13-1A and
all the patches that could be fit into the single 64K code segment of
CPC13-1A were put in to the extent that there was only room for 155 more
bytes of executable code?

Recognizing this limitation, apparently you are against the fact that
CPC14-1A resturctured RBBS-PC so that it could be comprised of literally
as many separately compiled .BAS source files as necessary (each with
the capability of containing it's own 64K code segment).  Now with
CPC14-1A and future RBBS-PC releases all any contributor has to do is
supply a simple .MRG to the main line code (RBBS-PC.BAS) adding a call
to his enhancement (which need only be distriubted as an .OBJ file that
can be linked with RBBS-PC.OBJ and RBBS-SUB.OBJ).  This could be a
sophisticated on-line ordering module, a call-back registration module
for new users, an on-line data base retreival module, or whatever!

This enormous effort and time (including the extensive comments in the
source code for both RBBS-PC.BAS and RBBS-SUB.BAS) so that others "could
and would make it better" is something you also seem to feel is just
another example of what your are "...against (in) the way that (I)
follow the IDEA."  Each release of RBBS-PC has tried valiantly to both
be upward compatible (keeping the faith with those that did not want to
change) and incorporate as many new features as could be accommodated
within the limitations of BASIC.  Those that have not yet been
incorporated were only due to one of these two restrictions.

Since you feel called on "...to defend products like PC-Board," I can
only conclude that you feel that it fails to meet the two criteria (of
which only one has to be meet) for being an original BBS product.  I
suggest you take a look at Larry Jordan's T-COMM, (301) 428-7931, if you
want to see an original product that "used something that was familiar
and took it to a level that they felt was higher than RBBS."  It should
appeal to you as it is written in "C."  There is also an RBBS written
in Turbo (I think it is called Colossus) which many like and which is
an original BBS product.  None of these products have authors that feel
compelled to sneer at others or extoll their author's supremacy.

Despite my best efforts to make RBBS-PC the ultimate in "users helping
users," I regret that you feel that all I have been trying to do was
to make it "...more TOM MACKish..."  Apparently the thousands of hours
spent documenting the record layouts, commenting the source code, re-
structuring RBBS-PC to accommodate more and more features and modifica-
tions without excluding any doesn't seem to enter into your judgement.
From the very beginning even in the copyright notice I ask nothing for
myself -- only for other software that can be shared, enhancements to
to RBBS-PC itself, and lastly donations to the Captial PC User Group (an
all-volunteer, not-for-profit PC user group).

I think you are right, one of us has changed over the years.

Enjoy.....
Tom Mack


Msg #  5715 Dated 03-28-86 16:52:02
 From: JERRY SHIFRIN
   To: SYSOP
   Re: (R)EDITORIAL

Thank you for taking the time to provide a considered reply to
my comments. I'd like to note just a couple of things:
1. I don't assume/believe/suspect anything about the original
PCBoard code. I only noted that the author stated that it had
been totally rewritten from its original release. From a
caller's point of view, it uses a command structure similar to
RBBS, but I don't think that's an indication of anything other
than the fact that there are a lot of RBBS users and there are
only so many ways to read a message, download a file, etc.

Even if there had been some basis of PCBoard on RBBS (which is
unknown), I feel to see why you object to it since you promote
other people modifying/enhancing RBBS, and since the current
version (10.) of PCBoard remains available as freeware - another
user helping users.

2. I don't expect a provider of public domain software to be
able to provide the same support that a vendor can. I assume you
have a real job which takes up much of your time. I should be
able to get prompt support from a vendor on problems with his
products. There are a fair number of public domain packages I
use regularly (and have in general sent in the requested
donations), but I would hate to have to depend on them for
critical business needs. I have personally contributed a number
of packages I wrote to the general community, and believe in
that as a a good way for users to help each other. But I
wouldn't want people to start calling me when they have
problems.
Users helping users - but within reason.

3. Before bringing up PCBoard, I spent at least 2 years as a BBS
user, and felt I'd been able to evaluate most systems from that
point of view. Larry Jordon's TCOMM is excellent in a lot of
ways, but I find it cumbersome to maneuver thru all the layers.
I prefer the "flat" structure of PCBoard as opposed to TCOMM,
RBBS, FIDO, etc.

I sincerely appreciate hearing your thoughts on this, but
understand that I do not feel victimized or that I am an
accomplice. I intend to stick with PCBoard until I feel I've
found a package that's significantly better - faster, easier to
use, or more functional. So far, I don't know of any.


Msg #  5717 Dated 03-28-86 17:41:17
 From: ALAN PROCTOR
   To: SYSOP
   Re: EDITORIAL

I readsome of the various messages in response to your
editorial. (Hmmm, seems word wrap is not working here)  Anyway,
some friends and I run a PCBOARD system (I take it you are
referring to it?) and have been for the past few months.  We
originally were running RBBS.  But, it seemed to us that each
new version of RBBS just got sort of slower and slower running
until it was really slow.  I guess this was due to the
networking stuff - but we were never really able to figure out
why.  After changing over, we found that the PCBOARD code ran
really fast, and with no bugs.  Some folks did find some - but
the authors always fixed them the next day or so.  Anyways, in
comparison, RBBS and PCBOARD do not function at all in the same
way.  It's true that the displays are very similar - which
really helps the caller's out - but as far as what appears to
be happening with the code - PCBOARD seems to function quite
differently - like just one menu, and the different commands,
etc.  I think you may be pre-judging their code because in some
ways it looks like RBBS and it is written in basic.  However,
just becauwse of those two things - I don't think that means
they stole it from you.  I have heard rumors that many of the
features which are now in RBBS (via Mark Sieden, etc) were
actually donated by the authors of PCBOARD - like CRC Xmodem,
Word Wrapping, the color driver, etc.  If that is really the
case, I think that maybee you should not throw stones if you
live in a glass house.  I'm curious - did RBBS get the items
above from the PCBOARD authors?

Personally, I think you are blowing the whole thing out of
proportion and maybee giving RBBS a slightly tainted image not
in line with the past professional attitude of it's many authors
who have also spent a lot of time writing RBBS besides you.  If
the PCBOARD authors have a competing program - let RBBS and
PCBOARD stand on their merits, functions, etc. and get on with
it instead of going on a one man campaign.  Personally, I think
that PCBAORD has done some good in that it appears that the RBBS
authors have been forced into fixing up and including some new
features because of the competition and I think it is for the
betterment of all.

P.S. It's the little things I think that make the difference.
For example, I just listed back my message (which is sort of
long) but did not get a MORE prompt - PCBOARD gives me one.


Msg #  5718 Dated 03-28-86 18:41:19
 From: STEVE GILSON
   To: ALL
   Re: BUG IN CONFIG V1.95?

I have discovered a rather peculiar behavior of the new CONFIG
V1.95 for the RBBS-PC V14.1A. It seems that it refuses to
repair a message base properly if the message base was
originally created by the CONFIG.EXE that accompanied CPC13.1A.
It works fine on MESSAGES that it created itself, however.

Whenever I attempt to restore a killed message while running
CPC14.1A, it gives me a FIX YOUR MESSAGES FILE WITH OPTION 145
OF CONFIG message. But using this option has no effect if the
file was created using the earlier CONFIG program.

The solution, of course, would seem to be to start with a
freshly created MESSAGES file, but I really don't want to lose
all the back messages. Has anyone else encountered this, and is
there a solution? Thanks.


Msg #  5720 Dated 03-28-86 19:31:58
 From: ALAN PROCTOR
   To: TOM MACK
   Re: YOUR EDITORIAL

I printed out your current logon editorial and reviewed it's
contents at leisure.  As a current PCBOARD sysop and past
RBBS sysop, I would like to ask you the following non-hostile
questions:

Have you ever run (side-by-side) the code you refer to along
with RBBS in order to compare their respective modes of
operation?  It appears many of the recent RBBS enhancements
are a direct use of another BASIC BBS's program ideas.  Are
you prepared to defend RBBS code as being "original" in light
of your comments? What infringement(s) has the other software
made against you or the distribution of RBBS code?  I have
made several program suggestions to the authors of PCBOARD.
All were implemented within 72 hours by professionals who
wish to insure the long range functionality and
standardization of their code.  Does RBBS support this policy
as well - since in the past I have made several
suggestions(bug fixes) to you Tom which were totally ignored
and still remain in your code to this date - and yet other
things like MNP - go into the code which no one wants except you.

Are you, Tom Mack, personnally jealous that someone else has
come up with BBS code which functions faster, smoother and is
more user and sysop friendly than RBBS, or are you speaking
in behalf of all the RBBS authors?  Since you are
distributing your editorial in the public domain, are you
prepared to substantiate your "claims" in the form of
documented code infringements which we may all evaluate on
their merits?

I ask these questions since at the present time, you appear
to be passing your judgement out to the masses with very
little support or substantiation of your claims - other than
"user supported", etc.  Also, I note that the authors of
PCBOARD have developed their own networking and doors
features which appear to be quite different than those of
RBBS - including a feature which allows several of the
network nodes to "talk" between each other while on-line.  I
must assume that since RBBS does not have this feature - that
it and all of the other features which I have had a chance to
use in PCBOARD which are not supported in RBBS - came from
the authors own ideas and the ideas of others which were
passed to them via sources other than RBBS code and I salute
them in their efforts to provide an alternative to those of
us who have a mind of our own.


Msg #  5721 Dated 03-28-86 22:59:31
 From: PAUL KURR
   To: ALAN PROCTOR
   Re: (R)YOUR EDITORIAL

I resent that remark about the use of MNP!!! I think that Tom is just
looking out for the future of RBBS.  MNP is one of the BEST error
correcting protocalls out today.  I have no connections with Microcom,
other than just using their protocall.  Instead of sticking with "tried
and true", and inefficient protocalls, such as xmodem, and such, it
seems to me that Tom is looking towards the future, expanding the limits
now, instead of cramming it in, and making it work later.  If MNP's next
class ever hits the PD, xmodem will be a thing of the past...


Msg #  5722 Dated 03-28-86 00:37:34
 From: RICHARD HAMILTON
   To: SYSOP
   Re: WHAT?

    It looks like quite a discussion concerning RBBS and PcBoard
software.  I'd like to contribute a few of my own thoughts:

1)  Let me state up front, that I am also a PcBoard Sysop.
2)  Let me also say that before moving to PcBoard I had used RBBS
    for almost a whole year.
3)  I too am for the user-helping-user concept.  It took a lot,
    and I mean a lot of help from another RBBS sysop just to get
    me up and running.
4)  I also enjoy having the source code in order to be able to
    customize the software to my own needs.
5)  I too, put in many hours of work modifying RBBS code in order
    to make it work right, and to add many needed features.  We
    were attempting to bring up a whole system of users at our
    company, if we had been successful, we would have gladly sent
    a contribution to your cause.  The problem, however, was that
    it never quite worked right, and was always too painfully
    slow to maneuver around in.
6)  I also program in C, assembly, and the wonderfully fun Turbo
    Pascal, and would hate to see any of my copyrighted material
    being ripped off,  all of which is on the commercial market
    where I would really be hurt if many people were stealing my
    programs.

Now, my reasons for the switch...

1)  PcBoard is a joy to work with!
2)  Before switching to PcBoard we also took a look at Colossus
    and T-Comm in order to justify throwing away the many hours
    and a lot of money (time spent working on RBBS) that we had
    invested in using RBBS.  Neither Colossus, nor T-Comm were
    chosen due to their operating structure (bulkiness and
    awkwardness in moving around), and because they too lacked
    the features that we desired.

3)  The single menu approach to bulletin boards is terrific! Any
    user becomes an expert in no time and he can't forget where
    he is.
4)  Also, the system is fast fast fast.  And I think it is
    written in Basic!  After all of my modifications to RBBS, it
    NEVER came cl close!  I'd really like to see the source, after
    my experience in C and assembly, I'd have to say that if it
    is written in Basic, then the authors must have spent a lot
    of time optimizing the code and that at least parts of it
    must be in assembler.
5)  PcBoard has had very few bugs (as long as I've had it), and
    those that it did have were generally fixed within 24 hours
    and then redistributed.  My co-worker who got RBBS for me was
    never able to get new RBBS source code changes that quick.
    We always had to try and fix it ourselves and then hope that
    the "real" fix would be in the next release.
6)  Now they say PcBoard has it's own version of Networking and
    Doors.  Hooray!  I've been on a couple of the beta test
    boards and they are still just as FAST as ever.  Reliable
    too.  I had always accused RBBS of being slow and blamed it
    on the network code, so either these guys know something
    about networking that RBBS doesn't, or else they've wrought a
    miracle.
7)  Our company is now moving along quite nicely with PcBoard,
    and I'm back to work on other projects.  No longer do I have
    to maintain the code so to speak, it works like a charm and
    is saving us lots of money in the process.  (Thanks PcBoard)

    After reading through the discussion on your board (I found
the first few messages downloaded to another local board) I had
to log on and state my devotion to PcBoard.  I rather doubt your
seeming implication that it is stolen from RBBS for ALL of the
above reasons.

    I guess if I thought someone had stolen my programs I would
quietly go about determining the truth and then prosecuting
to the fullest, but I really believe it sounds like you have
a chip on your shoulder.

    I would imagine that the Visi-Calc people felt the same way
you do back when lotus 1-2-3 came out and pulled the plug on
their merry-go-round.  I doubt that 1-2-3 stole Visi-Calc's code
because Lotus is so much better.  And for the same reason, I
would say the same about PcBoard.  Even if it is written in basic
and seems to have some of the same underlying functionality (look
how lotus copied VC's ideas),  I can't believe your assertions.

Richard Hamilton   (a previously disgruntled RBBS user,
                    now a happy PcBoard user)

 PAUL KURR
   To: ALAN PROCTOR
   Re: (R)YOUR