Slashdot Mirror

Arrgh. I am sick and tired of the Slashbot groupthink idea that the BBS is a thing of the past. The BBS community is alive and well on the Internet. It's single-line dialup systems that are dead.

BBS's still provide the greatest sense of a cohesive online community out there. Better than "blog" type nonsense, and certainly better than what the likes of MSN and AOL have to offer.

I've run UNCENSORED! BBS for 14 years and I'm not about to stop now. And the 200+ users aren't going to stop logging in, either. Modern BBS's offer access via telnet/ssh or web, your choice. And the Internet-connectedness of it all has made it possible for BBS communities to attain geographic diversity, something which was not possible when you had to deal with long distance modem calls.

Please, people, let's get the perspective straight. The BBS is alive and well, so stop pushing this "bygone era" myth.

Arrgh. I am sick and tired of the Slashdot editors pushing this idea that the BBS is a thing of the past. The BBS community is alive and well on the Internet. It's single-line dialup systems that are dead.

BBS's still provide the greatest sense of a cohesive online community out there. Better than "blog" type nonsense, and certainly better than what the likes of MSN and AOL have to offer.

I've run UNCENSORED! BBS for 14 years and I'm not about to stop now. And the 200+ users aren't going to stop logging in, either. Modern BBS's offer access via telnet/ssh or web, your choice. And the Internet-connectedness of it all has made it possible for BBS communities to attain geographic diversity, something which was not possible when you had to deal with long distance modem calls.

Please, people, let's get the perspective straight. The BBS is alive and well, so stop pushing this "bygone era" myth.

I'm not fully confident that stringing together Postfix, Cyrus, OpenLDAP, etc. is really going to produce a cohesive groupware server. Yes, it'll work, but it'll be difficult to install.

The real value here, though, is that the KDE project will now be defining a bunch of standard interfaces by which open groupware will access its back end services. Even if they don't get the back end perfect the first time around, by the time they're done they will have a very detailed set of specifications for the rules by which an open groupware client will talk with an open groupware server. Sure, there are standards for the basic protocols -- IMAP, SMTP, etc. -- but there are no standards for things like, which IMAP folder contains your task list? What's the URL to find another user's free/busy times?

I think this is a big step forward, but it can be done even better. (Full disclosure: I am a developer on the Citadel project, which aims to provide an easy-to-install groupware server; we're doing it as a single integrated server instead of stringing together multiple existing unintegrated packages. So my view on this is admittedly subjective.)

Check out the Citadel project. This started as a BBS server, but it's gradually being built up into a groupware system. We've spent the last couple of years building up a solid messaging architecture and a fast, efficient server architecture. Right now it does IMAP, POP3, and SMTP natively (no tedious mucking about with Sendmail or Cyrus), and it's got a web interface, too. It has a single-instance, transactional data store. It has a pluggable, extensible architecture. And one of our design tenets is that it must be easy to install.

No calendaring yet, I'm afraid. We're still finishing up the server foundation. As soon as there are some decent calendar clients out there to test CAP (Calendar Access Protocol) with, we'll start building the calendar server.

I am absolutely serious about this project. This is not vaporware.

What I'd really like to see opened up is either the MAPI extensions used for calendaring/scheduling, or the Exchange wire protocol used to do the same. If either were opened up, we'd be able to extend groupware servers like Citadel to handle Outlook calendaring/scheduling with the same capabilities as an Exchange server.

Let's go, Bill: put your money where your mouth is. Is your software good enough to stand on its own merits instead of being propped up by platform lock-in?

Arrgh. I am sick and tired of the Slashdot editors pushing this idea that the BBS is a thing of the past. The BBS community is alive and well on the Internet. It's single-line dialup systems that are dead.

BBS's still provide the greatest sense of a cohesive online community out there. Better than "blog" type nonsense, and certainly better than what the likes of MSN and AOL have to offer.

I've run UNCENSORED! BBS for 14 years and I'm not about to stop now. And the 200+ users aren't going to stop logging in, either. Modern BBS's offer access via telnet/ssh or web, your choice. And the Internet-connectedness of it all has made it possible for BBS communities to attain geographic diversity, something which was not possible when you had to deal with long distance modem calls.

Please, people, let's get the perspective straight. The BBS is alive and well, so stop pushing this "bygone era" myth.

Check out the Citadel system. (Disclaimer: I am one of the developers, so my opinion on this is kind of strong.) We use Berkeley DB from Sleepycat Software for the data store. Yes, this is the same Berkeley DB that Sendmail uses to store its alias tables, access tables, etc. But it's capable of so much more than that. It's a robust, non-relational database that is hugely scalable and even has transactions/logging support!

We store all messages in the database.

Works like a charm. No pounding through ugly directory hierarchies or insanely long flat files. No need to escape out the word "From" when it appears at the start of a line. None of the cruft.

Ok, so it's a black box. But it's an open source server that uses an open source database backend, and since it supports SMTP/POP/IMAP plus webmail all by itself, you can still plug your favorite utilities into it (Pine, elm, fetchmail, etc.) and you don't have to graft together Sendmail+IMAP+whatever to make your mail system work.

The traditional Unix mail utilities are getting a little long in the tooth. I'm going to get flamed for saying this but look at what's happened to the email world: Lotus and Microsoft have run away with most of the market because Unix traditionalists won't give up their flat files. It's time for us to evolve, folks.

I don't see the problem here. The Organization: field gets set by the NNTP server that carried the message onto the 'net. This is great, it provides quite a bit more authenticity for messages.

I'm building a little groupware server that supports SMTP/POP/IMAP (among other things) and I do something even more heinous, to prevent open relaying: if you're not using authenticated SMTP, you can't deliver a message that claims to be from one of the server's own domains -- and if you are using authenticated SMTP, it rewrites the From: header line, forcing the message to appear authored by the user you logged in as.

Internet tradition and even some RFC's say that it's a sin to alter the message content, but in an era where people on the 'net just can't be trusted anymore, I think that's an obsolete concept.

what about infusion?
i don't think it has been in active development for a while but it once looked very promising.

it uses the Citadel/UX Communication Server
to do all the messeging stuff...and it's free.

check out the screenshots ...and maybe someone will start development on this again!!

Every time a topic like this comes up, I am inclined to remind everyone that our online culture originated in the world of BBS's. That's where the real communities are. I've been running UNCENSORED! BBS (click to log in) for the last 14 years, and lemme tellya, I've seen it all. From the heyday of dialup to the commercialization of the Internet, from the utopian vision of a level playing field to the inevitable commercialization of the mainstream Web... guess what, folks? Through all that time, us old-school BBS geeks have been enjoying each other's company for years, in relative peace and quiet.

A friend of mine once put it this way: if places like Disneyopolis, MSN, and America Online compose the roar of the information highway, then your favorite friendly BBS could be likened to the corner pub where the locals gather.

Therefore I challenge each and every one of you to quit whining about what a commercial cesspool the mainstream Web has become, and go find your niche. Locate a BBS you like (I'd be thrilled if you chose mine, but there are lots of good ones out there) and log in daily. Become a part of the community. Meet people. Chat about whatever's on your mind: media, politics, sports, weather, relationships, technology, pets... it's all out there, and the sites operated by hobbyists are completely below the radar of corporate greed.

It's up to you. Don't like Disney's version of the 'net? Neither do I. Come join us in a place where they won't bother you.

This is not news, folks. Most of the web is crap.

That's why I've always maintained the belief that your favorite friendly interactive BBS is still a better place to spend your online time. There are people there. People to interact with. People to share views, opinions, and feelings with. The web is a one-way medium, and with the commercialization of it, it has become as boring and sterile as the rest of mainstream media. The BBS is not, and never will be. That's why small, friendly online communities are thriving.

Go ahead. Visit a BBS and get back to what we all know the real online experience is all about!

This is not news, folks. Most of the web is crap.

That's why I've always maintained the belief that your favorite friendly interactive BBS is still a better place to spend your online time. There are people there. People to interact with. People to share views, opinions, and feelings with. The web is a one-way medium, and with the commercialization of it, it has become as boring and sterile as the rest of mainstream media. The BBS is not, and never will be. That's why small, friendly online communities are thriving.

Go ahead. Visit a BBS and get back to what we all know the real online experience is all about!

You can even get the recipe for astrolite the world's most powerful non-nuclear explosive. Most people without a quality lab and understanding of the various chemical terms will blow themselves up and part of their neighborhood making this stuff though.

As usual, the Slashdot groupthink refers to BBS's as a "thing of the past." Listen folks, BBS's are not dead. Dialup is dead, yes. BBS's have moved to the Internet. Those that didn't evolve have died off. Those that did, are thriving. Click to log on. Telnet, SSH, web, your choice. Client software, the whole works. Some BBS programs are even evolving into nice-looking groupware systems.

You can bet your bitbucket that I'm going to drive this point straight home when I'm interviewed for the BBS documentary. BBS's are not dead.

Let's not forget Citadel, which when finished will be not only a calendaring server, but e-mail as well -- a full-blown Exchange killer.

Y'know what the really key piece is, that no one seems to be able to do? The ability to look at one of your peers' free/busy times, and find free slots to schedule events. Exchange does this by publishing, at the user's option, a version of the user's calendar that has the actual appointment data removed - you only see the blocks that are marked "busy" (and the blocks that are marked "tentative".

Regrettably, the RFC's for calendaring don't contain any standard protocol for doing this. There is an RFC for the data format, and the RFC for sending invites, RSVP's, etc... but we need one more RFC for a calendar access protocol.

I, for one, am happy to see that Mozilla will be gaining a calendar client. It will allow those of us working on the Citadel project to work with the Mozilla calendar client on all platforms, without having to reverse-engineer Microsoft's protocol.

One thing that I like about Jason is that he doesn't equivocate "BBS" with "the past" the way some other people (*cough*CmdrTaco*cough*) do. The BBS community is definitely alive and well; it's moved to the Internet, of course -- dialup is what's dead. And with modern BBS software giving users a choice of text or web interfaces, there's little chance that it's going to go away anytime soon. (Click this link to go to UNCENSORED! BBS, which I run on a Linux box in my basement with a DSL circuit.)

The role of BBS's is what has changed. The "make the sysop some money" boards all turned into ISP's in the mid-1990's. The "download information/drivers/etc." BBS's were properly replaced by web sites. But the online community BBS's are still here. The ones run by people who love to get a great group of people online to enjoy each other's company. The places where spirited, friendly discussion is the meat and bones of the medium. No, it's not exactly like it was a decade ago, but few things are. Some things aren't quite as charming, but some things are actually better. No more endless busy signals to get on your favorite BBS, since the Internet is by its nature multiuser (right now I'm counting 10 people logged into my BBS).

With the mainstream Internet becoming more and more the playground of the corporate elite, I'd expect small, hobbyist-operated sites like BBS's to become even more popular, as users get disgusted with having pre-packaged crap shoved at them through the big channels, and go around looking for something a little more "folksy."

I run one, actually. Nobody uses it though (except me), as this is the first time I've mentioned it since it went up again a month or so ago. OK, I'm lazy. :)

This is a very intelligent move on the part of AOL. Keep in mind that Windows XP is about to ship, and it's going to include MSN Instant Messenger. AOL knows that people are going to adopt MSN Instant Messenger because of the path-of-least-resistance factor (witness the dominance of IE due to its bundling with Windows).

Why is this important? Because of the interoperability nature of instant messaging.

Anyone who does IM knows that IM users hang out in packs. You gather together your circle of buddies and you all use the same IM system, because the different systems don't talk to each other. Most groups use AIM, some use ICQ or Yahoo Pager, some use MSN. (I don't use any of them, because all of my buddies hang out on the same BBS and we use the instant messenger built into its software.)

AOL wants to avoid a situation in which an entire group of buddies has to move from AIM to MSN-IM because some or most of them are using MSN-IM. If there's interoperability between systems, AOL gets to keep some of the users.

This is a very smart move. AOL knows it can't keep all of the users. AOL also knows that you just don't get into a market share war with Microsoft when Microsoft is playing the bundling card.

I just hope that the interoperability standard is an open one (like e-mail is, with SMTP) and anyone can write a system that ties in ... rather than requiring "peering agreements" that only let the big boys play.
--

Y'know, I'm getting quite tired of hearing the Slashdot editors always refer to BBS's as if they are completely a thing of the past. Some of us are still running our BBS's, often just for fun instead of for profit. Inexpensive DSL with static IP addressing makes it possible for the hobbyist computer enthusiast to once again put up a public access system without requiring a revenue source. the software continues to improve and become ever more integrated with the modern Internet.

Dialup BBSing is dead -- for that matter, the days of dialup Internet are numbered, what with DSL and cable becoming ever more prevalent. But BBSing in general continues to go strong.

In fact, with the web becoming ever-more controlled by corporate interests, and UseNet rapidly approaching a zero percent signal-to-noise ratio, BBS sites will probably rise in popularity as the more enjoyable places to frequent on the Internet. Many BBS's are reminiscent of the way the Internet was before Corporate America dumbed it down.
--

Y'know, I'm getting quite tired of hearing the Slashdot editors always refer to BBS's as if they are completely a thing of the past. Some of us are still running our BBS's, often just for fun instead of for profit. Inexpensive DSL with static IP addressing makes it possible for the hobbyist computer enthusiast to once again put up a public access system without requiring a revenue source. the software continues to improve and become ever more integrated with the modern Internet.

Dialup BBSing is dead -- for that matter, the days of dialup Internet are numbered, what with DSL and cable becoming ever more prevalent. But BBSing in general continues to go strong.

In fact, with the web becoming ever-more controlled by corporate interests, and UseNet rapidly approaching a zero percent signal-to-noise ratio, BBS sites will probably rise in popularity as the more enjoyable places to frequent on the Internet. Many BBS's are reminiscent of the way the Internet was before Corporate America dumbed it down.
--

The true open source replacement for both OpenMail and Exchange is Citadel. It's rapidly shaping up to be a real Exchange killer. Powerful multithreaded server, transactional data store, POP and SMTP currently working, IMAP by the end of the year... bulletin boards, chat, instant messaging... clients in development for multiple platforms, web-based access already here... We're also planning on doing a MAPI connector similar to the one that HP wrote for OpenMail.

Citadel has already reached a point where people are starting to implement non-trivial projects on top of it. Come join the fun and help us stab MS in the back like they did to HP!
--

As to actually knowing any names on here, there's so many people on /., I don't think I know any names of anyone except for CmdrTaco, Cowboy Neal, JonKatz .. and I've been hanging out here for a couple of years.

I have to make this obligatory comment every time someone mentions groupware: we are writing exactly what you are asking for.

The Citadel project aims to be the "Exchange killer" of open source. SMTP and POP3 are working, IMAP is in development, and we already store user information in vCard format. Another developer is writing an iCalendar-based scheduling system for it, too.

Our high-performance multithreaded server will be the platform required to build really great groupware applications. At first we'll just use existing clientware, but eventually we'll be looking into writing client drivers for Camel (the API used by Evolution) and MAPI (so the Outlook droids can connect as well). The aim is no less than cross-platform groupware, including shared address books, shared calendaring and scheduling, etc. without the side effect of making Linux users second-class citizens (as is the case when you connect to Exchange server using anything other than Outlook).

Check this project out. It's exciting.
--

Both formats have problems. A true enterprise-grade message store will use an embedded database with transactions support.

Fortunately, a solution to this problem is being developed right now. The Citadel/UX project is developing a robust communications server that will compete with products like OpenMail, Groupwise, and Exchange. SMTP and POP3 are already in place; IMAP will be available by the end of the year. Web-based access works as well. After that's done we'll be writing plug-ins for both Evolution and Outlook, in order to facilitate all of the 'shiny things' working as well: calendars, address books, etc.

So, you might ask, what mailbox format does it use? None of the above. Messages are stored in a database, like they should be. The Berkeley DB package from Sleepycat Software (yes, it's open source) is used for robust back-end storage, including transaction and logging support.

I'd encourage any developers who are looking for the open source world's "Exchange Killer" to get involved in this project.
--

I think the reason people have such a hard time defining and re-defining, and then trying to assess the success or failure of, the "Virtual Community" is because "Virtual Community" is such a vague term. We've had virtual communities for almost two decades, in one form or another.

I have been a BBS operator for nearly 13 years (click to log on). In that time I've seen a small virtual community form, grow, and thrive. It's a wonderful thing that I wouldn't trade for anything.

Slashdot itself is a virtual community, as well. Anywhere you put together a recurring group that interacts with one another, instead of just with the computer, you have a virtual community.

There are so many of them that you can't apply any generalizations to the term and expect realistic assessment. Just like physical communities, some of them thrive, some of them coast, and some of them fall apart.
--

The Citadel/UX project is slowly but surely moving towards becoming an Exchange-killer in more ways than one. It's a very extensive, modular system, originally targeted at BBS applications but being built up as a general purpose groupware platform. Currently the developers are working on getting IMAP support in place, but calendaring is next. With a robust data store already there, calendaring will be well supported.

It can already do SMTP and POP3 natively (i.e. you don't have to plug it into Sendmail to make it work on the Internet). The iCalendar protocols will be built-in in a similar way.
--

And there are still lots of BBSs out there where you can actually talk to people, share information, have a good time, whatever. Let's not mix up the concept of "BBS" and "online game" like a whole bunch of people did in the mid and late 80s.

Check out Citadel for instance.
---

I really do like the idea of having total control of "my" source, knowing every byte of the code inside and out. But in the end, I realized it was just going to be too much work. It would have been really fun, sure, but what really made the decision not to start my own project was time. I didn't have the time to devote to coding for hours a day for weeks or months on end to get somewhere close to where the project I joined already was.

Before I did join them, though, I spent quite some time talking to the other developers as well as looking through the source. They all went out of their way to make me feel welcome, and since I've submitted code, they treat me as their peer in the project, complete with write access to CVS...

It's actually been exciting working with other developers, all of whom live in different states or even different countries. Apparently the author of this article had a very different experience with some project or another, or perhaps he's just talking out of his ass.

I don't know if my experience with joining an open source project is typical or not. Being an optimist, I'd certainly like to think that's how a project should run.
---

I really do like the idea of having total control of "my" source, knowing every byte of the code inside and out. But in the end, I realized it was just going to be too much work. It would have been really fun, sure, but what really made the decision not to start my own project was time. I didn't have the time to devote to coding for hours a day for weeks or months on end to get somewhere close to where the project I joined already was.

Before I did join them, though, I spent quite some time talking to the other developers as well as looking through the source. They all went out of their way to make me feel welcome, and since I've submitted code, they treat me as their peer in the project, complete with write access to CVS...

It's actually been exciting working with other developers, all of whom live in different states or even different countries. Apparently the author of this article had a very different experience with some project or another, or perhaps he's just talking out of his ass.

I don't know if my experience with joining an open source project is typical or not. Being an optimist, I'd certainly like to think that's how a project should run.
---

Linux is the ideal platform for such a system. The problem with all efforts so far to do something like this is that they have all centered around "the home computer" (typically a Windows box). To make something like this work, you have to have something a little more "hands off." It's got to be a box that you mount on a wall in the basement, plug your services (power, telephone, DSL/cable, etc.) into, and forget about it. More likely for most homes, an installer will perform this service. Then you have everything available, a truly automated home. With that shaky PC out of the way, it can actually work.

I have friends with X-10 installations, and they all complain that the problem with tying it into your PC is that they don't want to encumber the PC with home automation tasks. I've had mine running for about two years now, though, with no problem -- I use Linux. My main server, which is also running IP masquerade for my LAN, file/print services, as well as my BBS, handles it all without so much as a hiccup.

Truly effective home automation requires a system that was designed to be "always on" -- and to me, that means more than just the ability to reduce a service down to a tray icon, it means the ability to truly jump into the background, to start automatically even when nobody is logged on, and to seldom (if ever) stop. Once that pesky PC is taken out of the picture, this stuff can really fly.
--

Another great example of a virtual community is UNCENSORED! BBS which has been dialup since 1988 and both dialup and Internet based for years, up to this day.

A simple Google search will turn up many, many other BBS systems, and the successful ones can claim to have a virtual community right there.
---

A friend of mine observed many years ago that the primary appeal of alternative media is that it bypasses the traditional hierarchy . At the time he was speaking of 'zines, and also of BBS's (in fact, he made this comment on UNCENSORED! BBS, a small online community which I still operate today). This sentiment holds just as true today for the Internet -- perhaps even moreso. Everyone is a potential publisher. When more bandwidth becomes available, everyone will be a potential broadcaster as well.

Bypassing the traditional hierarchy. That's what it's all about. Undoubtedly this scares the daylights out of those who control the traditional hierarchy.
--

I've thought about this problem a bit myself. One of the things we're working on for the Citadel BBS package is NNTP support directly in the server. Combine this with the text and web front ends that are already in place, and connectivity is universal.

Now I'm not saying that everyone should use Citadel, but putting support for popular message exchange protocols in all such products should be the norm. It allows for non-UseNet NNTP networks to emerge.

Yes, I said non-UseNet. While UseNet has a lot to offer (for example, lots of opportunities to make money fast and virtually unlimited pay-per-view pornography), there exist people who have a different idea of how a large distributed messaging network should be run. For example, there used to be a lot of people who preferred FidoNet over UseNet. And those of us on the Citadel network still enjoy the online company that's far more 'folksy' than UseNet.

Now here's the important point that I hope will get this post moderated up. As recently as five or ten years ago, it would have been foolish to connect your NNTP to anything other than UseNet, because many people only had UUCP connections, or some other low-grade means of connectivity to the outside world. But here and now, everyone's got TCP/IP to the open Internet. What this means is that multiple, smaller, NNTP networks is a real possibility. They can be operated by groups who have varying ideas of how it should be run, varying target audiences, etc. Since everyone has TCP/IP now, you simply point your newsreader at the network(s) you are interested in.

Yes, I really do think that 'one big UseNet' is an obsolete idea, and that's why it's deteriorated so much.

See also:

citadel.org

isca bbs, U of Iowa