Dan Egli wrote in a message to Thom LaCosta:


>BBS, on the other hand strikes me as cumbersome in how it handles
>email/netmai
> and the web interface is missing features and appears to
> be rather boring.

 DE> I'll agree on the web interface portion. But beyond that... I like
 DE> BBBS, although I will admit I've consider throwing EleBBS/Linux on
 DE> an alternate port to see which users like more. But for that I'd
 DE> need users, and so far users are comming up in short supply :<

I have no users at all...stopped running the BBS years ago.


>It might be that I'm not reading/understanding the documentation, but
>I've see
> enough messages in the BBBS echo to make me wonder how well the package is
> documented.

 DE> ACtually documented decently, just take a while to get used to the
 DE> DOX 

Perhaps you're right....it may simply be that I've gotten too old and grumpy to
wade through documentation anymore....I know my daughters will attest to that.

 DE> I think that is partially since BBBS uses a propriatery message
 DE> base system. If you want to toss to a Hudson/JAM base on a Linux
 DE> box, HPT is your best bet. 

HuskY?  Maybe that's the key.

> My impression that BBBS fine for a real tekkie(which I am not) but
> is far too
> klunky to attract Internet users to Fidonet.

 DE> Well if you can provide a template to making EleBBS work in that
 DE> regard, i'm all ears. One problem i think you might find is that
 DE> there is no Qwk/BlueWave door that runs under Linux.. At least BBBS
 DE> has internal BW Support. 

But, how many internet users who find a Fidonet BBS are gonna care about BW
and/or QWK?  


cya,
thom
baltimoremd{at}baltimoremd.com
http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/ 
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro