>   Re: SyncTerm no long supporting ANSI
 >   By: Sean Dennis to Derek M on Thu Mar 18 2010 19:27:07
 > 
 >  > You've not completely read the message.  Basically, what he's wanting to
 >  > do turn SyncTerm and Synchronet into some kind of bastardized website.
 > 
 > Yes, I have completely read the message.  I went back and reread it just to
 > be sure.  This bastardized sessionful stateful website-alike thing is to be
 > in addition to existing functionality, not replacing it.  SyncTerm, at
 > version 1.0 and through 1.x will continue in its current form, the new
 > client will be developed and probably named separately,


you dont know that. deuce is an oddball and from what i read
that is what syncterm is becoming.
> the new services
 > will not use telnet, ANSI, etc. but those things will not be removed from
 > Synchronet (nor, AFAIK is it Stephen's place to make such sweeping and
 > fundamental changes to Synchronet anyhow.)
 >

deuce has made drastic changes in the past. he's outright broken things and
they've stayed broken for years.

sysop to user chat for example. i had to actually mention it several times to
rob and we trouble shooted it together on our systems.

 
 > I'm not likely to adopt this new protocol but I will follow it with
 > interest. Don't think I'm drinking the Sync koolaid on this one - I'm just
 > looking to clarify that, from what I saw in that message and from what's
 > been said since in the rather long thread that it provoked (and on IRC),
 > this is not the end of SyncTerm as a telnet client and it's not the end of
 > Synchronet as a telnet BBS package.

well i hope not. according to deuce i cant read, but he was mentioning all
these changes and then using syncterm and synchronet interchangeably....  now
it seems everyone is confused.



 > Well to each his own.  I like having a BBS that's old-school and textmode
 > at its core but has other services and interfaces attached to it.  I very
 > intentionally scaled back the web interface of my BBS so as to emphasize
 > this. I use my FTP, IRC, and mail servers frequently, and have found all of
 > them to be useful.

i'd like to add that the core "bbs" of synchronet is its strong suit.

the ftp server, mail server, http server, nntp ,etc are pretty poor
performance wise.

lets say someone his hitting my webserver or the nntp server. or mail server,
whatever... a user on the bbs will notice a lag.  that wont happen with other
servers like apache, mdaemon, filezilla or bulletproof/raidenftp.. you name
it.
 


 > Well, that's basically what Stephen was talking about doing.  I brought up
 > Facebook & web forums as examples of things that seem like the
 > grandchildren of the traditional BBS, but he thinks that what he has in
 > mind is similar to those but different enough to be worth pursuing as a
 > separate project, while still being close enough to the traditional BBS
 > experience to be considered a part of this world.  Who knows what will come
 > of it.
 > 
it wont become anything. deuce is not an idea man. he is a tinkerer. he works
on other
people's stuff, and most of the time it works out well.  he is very stubborn
and ocd about some things to a fault.

 > 
 > Apparently he thinks that it's broke.  I disagree but as long as I can keep
 > running my system in its current form I don't care too much if he pursues
 > this (as if I have any say in it anyway.)  I'm told that ANSI & telnet will
 > remain a part of Synchronet regardless of this project.

deuce is no bbs expert, nor does he know how REAL bbses, like yours, mine,
trackers, tj's are run. he doesnt know what OUR users do.  he has a stagnant
'test' bbs that's been up for a long time.  he has no real users and doesnt go
through what we go through on a day to day basis.



 > 
 > Sorry.  I post on fidonet so rarely that I usually forget that my signature
 > doesn't have my real name in it.  Nor do I really understand the fidonet
 > obsession with real names - but, as the saying goes, "whatever".
 > 
 > Derek "echicken" Mullin

posting with real names is more of a respect thing. some echos require it,
some dont.
some just require a real sounding name.

you and sean could be good friends. you are both smart intelligent passionate
people.


have a good one,

-jason h
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
http.telnet.nntp (1:250/501)