[nos-bbs] BBS Ddownload and Upload command bug

[Barry Siegfried]

["George (Skip) VerDuin" <k8rra at ameritech.net> wrote]:

> Greetings Jay and Barry (et al),

Greetings, Skip!  :)

> > No. FTP does that. Not [U]pload and [D]ownload.
>
> Oh yes I forgot - something that probably needs to be said in this
> thread... we have ftp for administrator users of jnos, but only
> U & D for BBS users at this time?
>
> Why is it OK to disadvantage them so?

PBBS "U & D" is a rather ancient concept that first started on simple
PBBSs with the transfer of text-only files and then became a bit more
sophisticated when binary file transfer became possible using an Xmodem
shim.  But it was retired many years ago in favor of FTP service.

As both an administrator of several machines *and* a simple client, I
use FTP all the time which is infinitely more reliable than the old
PBBS "U & D" commands.  And that is also precisely why nobody really
uses "U & D" anymore.

FTP is NOT designed only for administrative use.  It is an extremely
robust solution for any client who wants to get a file from or put
a file to any server that will allow it.  So much so in fact that
FTP client service has been built into web browsers.  Now it CAN'T
get any simpler than that.

But back to PBBSs which are what the issue is here... I remember
having discussions like this about PBBS use 15-20 years ago.  At
that time some said, "Why shouldn't we make the PBBS as user-friendly
as it can possibly be and offer all sorts of things from soup to
nuts", and others said, "The more we expand the original function
of the PBBS (which was for people to read bulletin board messages)
and the more we try and duplicate functions in a PBBS program which
have already been invented in the TCP/IP suite of services, the less
incentive we are providing to get people interested in and to start
learning about and using TCP/IP".

So the codewriters of that day did the next best thing... they
compromised.  In the xNOS programs, enough items were added to
make them "look and feel" like a real PBBS program even though
they weren't.  But it was hoped that it would be just enough to
whet the appetite of curious people who might like to learn about
and try out this "new thing" called TCP/IP.

I guess it depends how you define "disadvantage".  Is it really
a disadvantage not to have PBBS "U & D" commands available to
the person who doesn't use TCP/IP (and who *doesn't* use TCP/IP
in one form or another today)?  I haven't made these commands
available in my xNOS PBBS program for about 15 years now and
certainly, I don't have what you would call "busy" PBBS, but I
have honestly NEVER received a single complaint at any time from
any user of my xNOS PBBS that these commands were ever missed.

73, de Barry, K2MF >>
           o
          <|>      Barry Siegfried
+---------/-\---------------------------+
| Internet | bgs at mfnos.net              |
| HomePage | http://www.mfnos.net/~bgs  |
+----------+----------------------------+
| Amprnet  | k2mf at nnj.k2mf.ampr.org     |
| PBBS     | k2mf at k2ge.#cnj.nj.usa.noam |
+----------+----------------------------+