Xref: utzoo alt.bbs:276 comp.misc:4311 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!cmcl2!phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.misc Subject: Re: New Ideas in BBSes (No BS!) Keywords: BBS Client Server Network Message-ID: <8140@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 7 Dec 88 17:06:19 GMT References: <1217@cps3xx.UUCP> <12714@steinmetz.ge.com> <8083@dasys1.UUCP> <87@stanton.TCC.COM> Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Distribution: na Organization: Independent Users Guild Lines: 36 In article <87@stanton.TCC.COM> donegan@stanton.TCC.COM (Steven P. Donegan) writes: >Tom, I think the point here is that we ARE re-inventing the wheel. Hopefully >better and more flexible. I heard this rationale in 1980, and I'm sure I'll be hearing it in 2000. After all, why do people bother to re-invent the wheel if not to make it "better." However, after 297 people have done this, you have to step back and ask whether (a) they really know about each other's wheels, (b) they really USE the wheels they have to the fullest potential rather than taking one quick look, saying "Ooooh, I don't like *that*" and whipping out the chisel, and finally (c) whether some broader kind of tool needs to be worked on instead. > By the way, >server -> client is the proper structure, not client -> server. After all, >lots of Clients without a Server doesn't accomplish diddly( and a Server >without Clients can exist quite happily thank-you). Actually (many servers) <-> (1 or more clients) is the right structure. The original posting characterized the BBS program as a "server" and the users who dialed into it as "clients." This can't be right in the modern "X" understanding of those terms. Each user's smart terminal software would comprise a display server, while the central BBS program would be a client (perhaps one of several) which would communicate with each users's display server via the appropriate network services (async, LAN or whatever). It would be possible to write something like this right now under X11, but the bitstream volume would probably be too high to support 2400bps logins. If you hauled the functionality higher, you could implement something universal that could run on lots of boxes, and quasi nationwide via the various nets as well as locally via dialup. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)