From: kraus@rtsg.mot.com (David Kraus) Subject: Re: BBS package Date: 21 Sep 1993 09:41:41
In article <748545332.AA08065@psybbs.durham.nc.us>, Derek.Bischoff%f1.n3641.z1@psybbs.durham.nc.us (Derek Bischoff) writes:
> DCA> You've missed the point. The above does not say SHELL PROMPT. It says
> DCA> USER'S SHELL. Two different things. The shell could be a menu program
> DCA> where the user never sees the shell prompt.
> Well, actually Mark, I don't think he did.
> yasee, Unix, as an Operating system, when you consider all the
> built-in functions (news, mail, write or chat) It has the basic
> makings to provide excelent BBS services. It makes sense
> to provide a menu (bbs like) shell interface for the user to
> protect him from the unix shell prompt, then use the built
> in functions of mail, etc to do the work of the bbs.
> I believe one of the greatest obstacles of doing that are the following:
> One, for most bbs's it is a simple matter to remove a user from
> the list of users for bbs management.
It's a simple matter to do so on a unix-style system as well. There are
even programs to do it in /etc. You just need to set permissions for your
co-sysops to do it.
> Two, Most bbs's use a singular user for the bbs for the following:
> this way you can have NEW users, and this way you can have just
> one user, one set of permissions to regulate and keep sheltered
> from other users. (should you have any)
I don't really follow what you're trying to say here....
> It is difficult for someone to get an id, create an entry in the
> /etc/passwd file, allow him limited access, promote, etc, etc, etc
> in the current OS. If you have one login for the bbs, and it
> is public knowlege, you could build up users from that list. Loyal
> and current users who would like their own id could be accomodated for.
No it isn't. As a matter of fact, I have a friend (yes, it's not firsthand
experience, but I know of what I speak) running a homebrew BBS that's
nothing but a bunch of Perl scripts, used as a user's login shell. And he
has a user 'new', that can create an account for a new user. He doesn't
have to do anything by hand.
Now, he also doesn't have any real access restrictions in his system. If
you've got access to news, you get all the groups, etc. This is something
that is desireable in a BBS/public access environment, since you may not
want everyone reading everything that's out there. There have been hacks
given to solve this (different groups for different newsgroups, but that
turns into a maintenance nightmare as well), but none of them more than a
hack....
Actually, what I think is a HUGE limiting factor to the unix BBS's is the
fact that no 2 tools are consistant in their user interfaces. Mailers are
completely different from news readers, when, in reality, news and email
look about the same to the everyday user.
For example - put a newbie down in front of elm, and then try to
differentiate between when elm gets used and when trn gets used. And then
try to explain why the commands are all different for the same sorts of
functions (next article, next message, highlight bars as opposed to none,
etc.).
For the non-computer literate, or a person who hasn't had much experience
(you know, the target market for most BBS's), the inconsistant command
interface is a HUGE problem.
Followups to comp.os.linux.misc, because comp.os.linux doesn't really exist
any more....