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)