Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ogicse!qiclab!techbook!tsouth From: tsouth@techbook.com (Todd South) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Apple ][ BBS Software Message-ID: <1991Jun2.101318.11424@techbook.com> Date: 2 Jun 91 10:13:18 GMT References: <1991May30.042425.6881@clark.edu> <1991May31.193204.8485@unlinfo.unl.edu> Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Lines: 149 In article <1991May31.193204.8485@unlinfo.unl.edu> greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: >apollo@pro-hindugods.cts.com (Amrit Chauhan) writes: >>greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr) writes: >>>apollo@pro-hundugods.cts.com (Amrit Chauhan) writes: > >MD-BASIC, as you said in a later message, does indeed require a IIgs. If >you don't have one, you're stuck with editing AppleSoft code, which is >damn hard with how it comes out of the box. I should know, I've been >trying to get it to work on 2 800K disks, lacking a hard drive. Perhaps >the cost of one of those should be added to the list for ProLine's price. >Such an investment is not a necessity with GBBS "Pro" or METAL. I have >both resident in an 800K RAMdisk with one 800K drive which I swap when I >switch between them. To even go back to ProLine to do editing, I have to >archive my entire RAMdisk, copy one disk over, and then deal with >sequential AppleSoft, hoping I can find something I can do with it. I'm >about ready to put all BAS files into TXT so I can at least use ProTERM on >them. (Oh, that's in the RAMdisk too, and I still have plenty of space >left.) I have to take exception to this. If you are simply using the basic cli to edit Applesoft programs then that is your problem. As far as I remember, GBBS up to version 1.3j had NO editor whatsoever. Until ProTERM came out most people had to use AppleWriter and the switch back and forth was a pain in the ass. If you are going to edit Applesoft programs then shell out the $15 for a Beagle Bros. assistant program. I know you spent at least that much on a text editor for GBBS. Also, on the second point of the above paragraph, I know nothing about METAL but up until version 2.0 GBBS/ACOS still could not handle any message over 4K in length. All whining aside about ACOS not having arrays, a message system with a 4K limit is USELESS. The article you posted that I am responding to was 9.673 bytes by my count. GBBS could not even post the article. Proline has no limits other than the 16 meg limit on files of ProDOS. >I'm trying to figure out what the ModemWorks disk is for myself. You need >MD-BASIC if you want to edit the code nicely, otherwise you are stuck with >AppleSoft. Perhaps I should add that to run MD-BASIC you need a shell >like in APW or ORCA. Well, how much does ProgramWriter go for, nowadays? I don't think it costs that much. >>How much room do you want to run a BBS on!? 5 MB is hardly a big deal. If >>you're serious about running a BBS, then hell, you need a LOT more than just >>5 MB...that's an absurd point. >I've been running GBBS just fine off 2 800K disks. For awhile, I was >completely comfortable with the whole thing in a 1024K RAMdisk. A hard >drive is not something everyone has. Well, obviously you're not a warez board with a setup like that! :) Honestly, why would someone run a board with no realistic storage. If you were networked to even one feed from USENET you would have to purge most every message before even a few users would be able to read them. >>ProLine is still the BEST, and will be for a LONG while, >>networking BBS on the market for the Apple //! > >Watch out for METAL. Comes with networking, structured language included >(unlike MD-BASIC), and support via network as well. Hate to tell you, but Proline has all of these things and more, mate. We STILL get all of our updates for free. Morgan is very good about putting his spare time into the system, and he sure as hell doesn't count on it for a living. While I don't agree with everything Morgan has done in direction, you cannot show me another BBS author that provides the support that he does. And before you call me laddie I'd like to pass along that I started playing with these MOD/DEMs when 110 was vogue. >Hey, I'm not all against ProLine, it has some real good features. However >I have to weigh the pros and cons of each system. As I see it, Proline has one single con at this point. I won't bring it up as it may be changing in the near future. Sufficed to say, it is a great utility set for the intermediate to advanced user, and also is one helluva message/network base. >>About the renumbering program, if you really want to make serious changes to >>the system, you as a hopefully knowledgable programmer sure as hell better >>have a renumbering program! >I do. It's in DOS 3.3. Not very useful there. Doesn't like ProDOS much. >My filing system for back A+/inCider issues is pretty poor, but I think I >saw a modification which would make RENUMBER work in ProDOS. Anyone want >to save me the time? >>Morgan doesn't want just anyone changing his >>system around. He did that to discourage sysops that really don't know >>enough about BASIC (like me) from totally ruining their systems. >Yeah, and its preventing me from being able to get the thing to work on my >system. I know BASIC, but sequential numbering is a bit much. >>I don't see >>why that is a fault of ProLine. At least you CAN change it and even add >>programs to it. I did, and my knowledge of BASIC is three years in Middle >>School...how much easier does it get! > >With its current form, the only viable way is to use MD-BASIC. Wow, you are both wrong on this one. Have you ever noticed that Proline utilities and programs run rather fast? The reason for this was originally sequential numbering. Just because MD-BASIC numbers in a sequential fashion has nothing to do with pissing anyone off, making them convert renumbering programs (btw, the way to convert that is to rename the file commands to ProDOS ones, not that hard), or making them use MD-BASIC. Really, a person can still use ProgramWriter or another good Applesoft editor to write Proline utilities and alter current system programs. We even have conferences where we do nothing but tell each other about patches to make things work the way we want them. >>Still a firm supporter of ProLine... >>Amrit >I'm definitely not trying to throw you off your support of ProLine. I >just don't suggest it for someone who wants to start a BBS for the first >time. ProLine isn't that system. If I wanted to code an AppleSoft BBS, >I'd be using Sonic BBS right now. Right now I'm using ACOS. GBBS itself >has been very modified to a barely recognizeable state. It is nice to be >able to make self-modifying code. > >greg \_\\\/ hoss.unl.edu Sonic? That would be a sick proposition. No real internal control at all! Seriously, you must not own a copy of Proline to even begin to compare it to GBBS. The only reason that GBBS is around today is some mystic personage a while back (we like to call him the genius of Miami) wrote a good transfer section for GBBS and has followed through with protocols that make it a good program to run pirate warez boards off of. Without the pirate support base I honestly don't feel that GBBS would have the following it does today. There is not one thing done in GBBS (excluding protocols) that is not easily repoduced and done better from within Proline. The ONLY reason that MD-BASIC came into existance is for programming Applesoft from a more freeform atmosphere. It had nothing to do with Proline, IMHO. I purchased Proline in early 1987 and have been programming my own stuff for it without the use of MD-BASIC since the first week it arrived in the mail. Todd... -- -- tsouth@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!tsouth Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257 Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks