Subj : Online Communities
To : Charles Pierson
From : August Abolins
Date : Mon Nov 09 2020 02:42 am
Hi Charles!
Answering a msg of <08 Nov 20>, from you to me:
AA>> those well supported systems with multiple lines.
AA>> Hence, users gravited towards systems where they
AA>> could get on right away..
CP> I remember with AOL, it would cycle through local
CP> numbers until it connected. The others I don't
CP> recall.
The others had little to no busy signal issues. Even IBM had its own BBS. That was fun to connect to and get info about OS/2 updates and post messages in the online community. From the latter, I learned about an OS/2 user group that would meet every month in downtown Montreal in one of the IBM buildings. They featured guest speakers (programmers, designers..), door prizes. I won an OS/2 Warp T-shirt one evening - that was cool.
CP> But as far as single line BBSes, I had several
CP> different systems in my terminal program. At least
CP> 20-30 local one's during the height of popularity.
CP> With autodial, the terminal program would simply
CP> go down the list until a system connected.
I had much the same. I just robo-dialed my usual BBSes.
But TODAY, that dial-n-wait process is obsolete. I don't think the prospective public knows that BBSes are accessible via Telnet (with their exisiting internet service) and the waiting queue is practically non-existent.
CP> I primarily logged on transferred QWK or BW
CP> packets and logged off. A few systems, I would
CP> play a few door games. Primarily league games.
Same here. I wasn't too much into the games, but it was a nice diversion at times.
AA>> To come back? Why would they do that, when they
AA>> get pretty graphics and colours (html) and
AA>> buttons to click on the screen? It's so much more
AA>> fun.
CP> True, you could see things that you couldn't on a
CP> BBS, but why is it either/or?
CP> For the most part, with a few exceptions, you
CP> still have far better quality discussions on Fido
CP> than elsewhere online.
The target audience is jappers like you and I. I don't need the graphical distractions that online web interfaces provide.
CP>>> Obviously I was wrong.
AA>> :)
CP>>> I tried newsgroups now and then. I didn't care
CP>>> for them. It seemed a cheap imitation of
CP>>> echomail.
On that, I concur.
CP> Fidonet had a Message area for nearly any topic
CP> you could imagine.
Over time, the majority of active echos reduced to areas geared for sysop/bbs interests.
CP> Now systems either can send packets as soon as
CP> there is new mail or hourly, as they choose, so
CP> you can have back and forth in a conversation
CP> several times a day.
This is what today's Fidonet ought to leverage and promote for the user's advantage.
AA>> Sysops do there best with listings.. But, for the
AA>> most part Fidonet (or any othernet for that
AA>> matter) remains obscure to the average user out
AA>> there.
CP> Exactly. How many of those things would someone
CP> not part of the BBS community even know exist?
Word needs to be seeded outside the Fidonet realm.
CP> Even with Facebook, I belong to a Group called
CP> FidoNet TREK Echo. It was supposedly set up to
CP> mimic it's namesake. There are about 175 members
CP> in the Group. Besides myself, I know 3 members
CP> that were for certain part of Fidonet in the past.
I hung out in the fido PHOTO group. Then, when internet came along, someone built a Facebook group and everyone went there. The FB solution was pretty good considering that echo was primarily about each other's photos. FB made it easy to share images. BUT... I noticed that the converstional content degraded to zero. The FB group maybe had a brief description (or none at all) for an initial photo, but the rest of the content was just the "thumbs-up" thing, or one-liners like "great photo".
The group even experimented with scheduled audio chat events (think Zoom, but for audio-only). That was rather cool, except for me still on dialup at the time, it was a brutal experience. Group audio could get confusing.
CP> ... people share articles related to various Star
CP> Trek related shows, movies, events, actors.
CP> Occasionally, someone will post an opinion on an
CP> episode. But there is no discussion to speak of.
CP> It hardly reflects what the Echo it's named after
CP> was.
Same result as PHOTO echo.
CP> My point is that if you have something like that,
CP> wouldn't you want to promote where it came from?
That is a good point. A shout-out to a sister "disscussion" group on Fidonet could appeal to some of the FB TREK users too, like you.
AA>>>> Twitter..
CP>>> I don't get the hashtags. I mean, I understand
CP>>> what the intent was, but I don't get it..
AA>> They are a way to categorize a message...
CP> I know what hashtags are and their purpose. I
CP> don't get the need for them.
It is a way to attempt to build a community of likeminded people on a particular topic. Case in point: #metoo And look how that sky-rocketed into media fame.
AA>> The ZDnet article mentioned The Well. The
AA>> internet presence for The Well looks amazing and
AA>> well organized. It's basically the same thing as
AA>> Fidonet, but webbased forums. Not sure if there
AA>> is an offline option for messages. Its philosophy
AA>> of real names, etc... reads very much like the
AA>> Fidonet BBSses of old.
CP> The Well is a commercial BBS, more or less.
Was it always commercial? One of the history articles in WIRED didn't quite cover that aspect. But it did primarily focus on an LA community. No mention of anything like echomail connecting people worldwide.
CP> I wasn't clear enough, I guess.
CP> History is important. FidoNet showed what a bunch
CP> of regular people are capable of. Linking
CP> thousands or more people together worldwide
CP> talking about things. Not governments, not
CP> corporations, not Universities. People. On their
CP> own time, out of their own pockets.
I sense a fine Fidonet article in the making!
CP> Different computer systems, it didn't matter.
CP> Different OSes, no problem. We have this program
CP> in DOS, let's make it available for people that
CP> use OS2 or Linux. Or vice versa.
CP> You have a C=64? No problem, join in the fun.
CP> If I'm not mistaken, every model of home computer
CP> there was could participate.
Yes.. there was excitement to accomodate the caller/user.
CP> Apathy fits a lot of it. But there is more than
CP> that.
CP> How many BBS related programs are there that have
CP> versions for multiple operating systems? What if
CP> those programmers thought, "I only use X OS. I
CP> don't need to port it to Y."? Or release the code
CP> so someone else can.
CP> That's exactly what this is here. Android is
CP> simply a different OS.
CP> But there are negative reactions to the idea.
Age? I think the sysops/progammers of yesteryear are tired, satisfied to just dwell in nostalgia.
CP> It's the negativity.
CP> "The screen is too small"
CP> "The Keyboard is too small"
CP> "It's too hard to read on it"
Those are user's/sysop's comments. What is lacking is a programmer/visionary.
CP> Ok, in your particular situation, any or all of
CP> these comments might be true. But that doesn't
CP> make it universally true. Millions of people use
CP> tablets and smartphones on a daily basis.
Except for the tried and true genuine BBS interface experience, there is no real reason NOT to embrace supporting echomail on a smartphone/tablet. Some of the NNTP apps are pretty good. They just need cooperating sysops to provide the server-side for that - which there is. JamNNTP goes a step further and tries to mimic the FROM:/TO: in the typical nntp field so that you can see both names in a conversation.
CP> My more current discussion in Asian Link. His idea
CP> works. It's more programmer heavy than I'm looking
CP> for. But it's there, and if it works for people,
CP> I'm in full support.
Which discussion is that? I think I missed it. Short-lived? Was it just a comment or two?
CP> The general public aren't big programmers. But
CP> they can install an app. They can type an address.
CP> They can fill out a form. So the typical BBS
CP> related software, a decent Telnet that supports
CP> ANSI graphics and BBS transfers for Mail Packets,
CP> seem a very good thing to me.
That is all good. Keep expressing it. If you could draw in someone who can explore your ideas futher, it could get traction.
CP> As far as the BBS on Android idea? It's definitely
CP> not for everyone. But it's something that I see
CP> potential for.
I'm reminded of the BBS-on-a-Stick project.
AA>> Yes, Hotdoged seems to be a fine adaptation for
AA>> Android devices. But is that the one where the
AA>> code is not available?
CP> The Fido provider portion of HotdogEd is based on
CP> jNode. I'm not sure about the other portions.
I see lots of tutorials and info on jNode. Sounds good.
