--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFE00002 Date: 11/10/97 From: GERRY ELLISON Time: 12:41am \/To: JACK STEIN (Read 0 times) Subj: Sad News JS> and it would take a lot of work I think changing all the little JS> utilities and things I've written in REXX (that is my real hobby JS> rather than just running a BBS it seems). ------------------- -------------------- Hello Jack! I still read the Opus Echo because of old memories. I started with Fido changed to Opus then Maximus. Maximus has a nice Mex programing language that you can do almost anything with. Everyone seems to get bent out of shape because all Opus SysOps are not programers, and can't contribute code to them. There is a continuing Fido-Opus BBS called Maximus. I don't see new life in Opus because the spark left with with John Valentin. Wayne's Idea, Dug Boone's v1.73 and v7 nodelist all left their mark, but the baby is now a orphan. Look at the Mex and/or Mecca if you like to play! Regards, Gerry - gerry@pcanyrhing.com --- timEd/386 1.10+ * Origin: The Mountain Top Genealogy BBS *OH* 513-921-5568 V34+ (1:108/107) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFF00000 Date: 11/10/97 From: ROGER SCUDDER Time: 01:02pm \/To: JAN MURPHY (Read 0 times) Subj: fresh start or nothing for Opus? Hello Jan, On Nov 06, 1997 Jan Murphy of 1:161/84 writes: JM> So where do we go from here? JM> I say that if we want to have a new Opus, then it's time we all JM> better knuckle down, hit the books, and learn to code. We can't JM> depend on anyone else to do it. We can't depend on getting the JM> source code. If we want it, we'll have to roll up our sleeves and JM> make it all over again from scratch, and fight for it ourselves. [ ... ] JM> Maybe we don't have enough knowledge and gumption and willingness JM> to work and time among us to pick up and start all over again. JM> If that's the case, then Opus is dead and we'll all have to switch JM> to Max or go off into the Great Meadow in the sky where the ex-Opus JM> sysops go. JM> But I for one am tired of hearing all the whining, all the moans of JM> "isn't it a shame", all the hand-wringing, all the piteous cries JM> that Wynn and Doug and Trev have abandoned us. No, they showed us JM> that cool things could be done if you sat your butt in a chair and JM> learned to code. They have gone on to other things now; that's JM> their right. Now it's our turn to take over and carry on, if we JM> want to. Your words are very stirring. I would be willing to participate in a rewrite of Opus with you, if you are really serious. I already have a jump on the coding skills. I have enough experience with C to handle a project like this. I will tell you right now, thought, I will not do it alone. I am only willing to participate in a cooperative effort. The first step in any well executed software development cycle is to draw up what is known as program specs. The specs should put into words everything that the program is to do. You don't need to be a programmer to make good specs. You do need to know exactly what the program should do. I think that the Opus sysops here should be able to draw up a fine set of specs. If you want this thing to happen you must see that this first step is carried out. Once the specs are written the coding can begin. The coding can be broken down into parts so that several coders can contribute. This would be a good chance for anyone who wants to learn. As long as everyone is working to the same blueprint (specs) the cooperative effort can work. I'm sure that at this point you can see the importance of well written specs. With out them I'm afraid the project would be on shaky ground. If this sounds like something you would like to invest in, say the word. If not then I'll move along to some other project, but as I have said, I won't try to do this alone. If you want to contact me in private, I have an e-mail address below. The node number is my Mail Only node, so PLEASE DO NOT CRASH MAIL to that address UNLESS IT'S BETWEEN 4:00 AND 5:00am EST which is my ZMH. My wife gets upset when she picks up the phone and no one is there. Regards, Roger Scudder Send private replies to: rscudder@usa.net ... This message released to public domain. Use at your own risk. --- Msgedsq 3.05 * Origin: Hodge-Podge Support BBS, Upper Darby, PA (1:273/404) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFF00001 Date: 11/09/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 11:58pm \/To: JIM BARCHUK (Read 0 times) Subj: Sad News Jim Barchuk wrote in a message to All: IS>> I recall that parts of the Opus source code used proprietary IS>> libraries and perhaps also other code that cannot be IS>> released; I expect that we're unlikely to ever see Opus IS>> become 'public domain' or anything resembling it. JS> This is the only reason I can see as to why the source code JS> wouldn't be released to anyone, JB> 'Only' reason? As if there needs to be more? Nope. "Only, as in thats the "Only" reason I can see not to release the de. JS> The fact that the code has been given to a chosen few would... JB> Not 'given', probably under very legal, signed, non JB> disclosure agreement. Probably true, possibly not. JS> My guess is if they released everything to the public domaine... JB> They -CAN'T-! No one can give away what they don't own. JB> Can't anyone around here spell 'lawsuit'? This is not a BBS JB> or a Fido thing, this is 'real life'. Nobody sued Scott Dudley, and supposedly, he wrote his code directly from OPUS code? I don't disagree with you however, I just think if the code is owned by the few people originating it, then it would not hurt to release the code. It's life span is over anyway it seems. JB> Forget it, give it up on this 'public domain' crap. It ain't JB> gonna happen unless whoever owns whatever code says 'you can JB> give away what I own'. Those asking for public domain release are apparently hoping for just that. I don't think it would change much of anything anyway. I doubt anyone would spend all that time figuring out what to do with it. If it were that simple, those that made the attempt with the code (3 attempts I know of, and only TREV managed to get something minor out) For me, OPUS still works just fine as it is. I don't do anything fancy, just move files around the phone lines. Jack --- timEd/2-B11 * Origin: Jack's Free Lunch 4OS2 USR16.8 Pgh Pa (412)492-0822 (1:129/171) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFF00002 Date: 11/10/97 From: BOB JUGE Time: 06:43am \/To: GEORGE FLIGER (Read 0 times) Subj: Sad News George Fliger wrote in a message to Bob Juge: GF> Quite simple, really. Max was a ripoff of Opus and I won't support GF> it no matter how good it might be. BJ> And what do you think Opus was in relation to Fido (Tom Jennings' BJ> BBS)? GF> Other than the fact that both support a concept known as "Fidonet", GF> not anywhere's close. GF> Look, I don't need this crap, Bob. If you want to say you're GF> better than me or you know more than me then just say it and get it GF> over with. I'm sure someone will be more than happy to pat you on GF> the back after you break your own arm trying to do it yourself. Quoting a file from Wynn Wagner's WWW site us "crap"? GF> This type of s#$t is what helped to bring Opus down in the first GF> place. Remember all the Bev Freed incidents. Yeah, I thought you GF> did. Yes, I remember. But ask yourself who's acting like Bev in this discussion? I was on the Opus 1.1x beta team, acted as Opus Archive, spoke with both Wynn and Tom Kashuba at that time, and hung around through George Stanislav, Doug Boone, and Jon Valentyn before finally throwing in the towel and going to Maximus. I will always have a warm spot in my heart for Opus because it was so much fun to be a part of the team, and participate in all the innovations that Opus produced. Since then, the closest thing I found was being a part of the Maximus 3.x beta team. The accusations about Scott somehow "stealing" the Opus code are untrue. I have since come to grips with the fact that using the Opus "look 'n' feel" in Maximus was the same thing Wynn did (to Fido 11w) when he released Opus 0.0. Initially, I was insanely mad when Max 1.0 first came out, too (I was still running Opus at the time). But after lurking in MUFFIN for a while, and seeing the constant work & improvements that were going into Max, I made the switch. I think Jon Valentyn was the LCD at that time for Opus. When he died, it all seemed to fall apart. Doug Boone made noises about an Opus 2.00, and even released a structs file that included a new message database like Max's Squish (which I have here for download), but nothing ever happened. Don't take these messages as a flame or a diatribe against Opus, George. I simply think it's unfair for you to label Max as "a ripoff of Opus" without some historical perspective and facts presented to the contrary. - Bob Internet : bob@juge.com Telnet, Vmodem, WWW or FTP to juge.com --- timEd/2 1.10+ * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFF00003 Date: 11/09/97 From: BILL SWISHER Time: 10:44am \/To: JAN MURPHY (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: fresh start or nothing for Opus? JM> And whined about when Opus was going to be ported to their OS. Ahhh...but I did offer to "attempt" a port to Linux. I was told no. As it is....my BBS will shutdown in Feb. and I'll turn the computer into a Linux NFS/Firewall/Print/Dialout server for my little home network. bswisher@micronet.net or nobody@192.168.1.1 --- Via Silver Xpress V4.4 [Reg] * Origin: The LitterBox Anchorage, AK 907-337-9776 (1:3550/513) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFF00004 Date: 11/10/97 From: GEORGE FLIGER Time: 07:14am \/To: JIM BARCHUK (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: o_qwker case sensitive? On 4 Nov 97 10:25am, jim barchuk wrote to all: jb> Hello All! jb> While debugging other stuff I think I found what may be a jb> severe problem. jb> Looking at the rcvd status of various user msgs. 'Some' are jb> marked rcvd and 'others' are not. I can only assume that these jb> msgs have in fact not been downloaded because in the past I jb> have noticed that received msgs are always marked rcvd. jb> Given a user, User Name, some other BBS and messaging software jb> seems to be extremely rude and set replies To: USER NAME. jb> O_Qwker appears to be case sensitive with regard to user name jb> and is not giving the user messages where the case has been jb> mucked with. jb> Anyone else see anything like this? Haven't seen that here, but then again, I'm using a very old version. George ... A man in the house is worth two in the street. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.4P [Reg] * Origin: Chipper Clipper * WOC'in' on the water * (1:137/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFF00005 Date: 11/10/97 From: CHARLES RING Time: 12:09pm \/To: JACK STEIN (Read 0 times) Subj: Sad News JS> As a few others have mentioned, FIDO was pre-OPUS, and OPUS evolved JS> from that, and MAX "evolved" from OPUS. It's my understanding that JS> when GS was working on OPUS, he got into a fight with the originators JS> over the small memory model, and wanted to require a front end. He JS> ended up giving the code to Scott Dudley, who did just that, and JS> called it MAXIMUS. Whether or not any of that is true, I have no JS> clue, and frankly, don't really care much. It is obvious that it's a JS> damn good thing MAX was developed, as that is what all but a very few JS> OPUS sysops now use, and it is current and actively developed for a JS> variety of platforms. I was here when the stuff hit the fan re Max being a ripoff of Opus. It was reported that Wynn looked at the Max version 1 source code and determined it was NOT at all the same code. Later, Scott Dudley released that code publicly (I have it on file somewhere). It seems very unlikely to me that George Stanislav (sp?) would have broken a promise by giving out source code. --- * Origin: W3NU in Sharon, PA; formerly WA8VNU in Niles, Ohio (1:2601/100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFG00000 Date: 11/09/97 From: IAN SMITH Time: 11:52pm \/To: JACK STEIN (Read 0 times) Subj: Sad News Hi Jack, IS> I recall that parts of the Opus source code used proprietary IS> libraries and perhaps also other code that cannot be IS> released; I expect that we're unlikely to ever see Opus IS> become 'public domain' or anything resembling it. JS> This is the only reason I can see as to why the source code JS> wouldn't be released to anyone, or at least anyone that was JS> interested and cabable of messing with the code. I guess that's up to Wynn, it's still his baby .. JS> The fact JS> that the code has been given to a chosen few would indicate JS> it could be given to at least a chosen few others. Is anyone wanting to take it on? Or does everyone just want someone else to? I take it that, to date, the code has only been 'given' to people willing to work with it on Wynn's terms, which certainly seems fair enough to me. It seems obvious that those terms have precluded the release of source code. JS> The application is destined to die now, and since the JS> originators have long ago lost interest, keeping it under JS> wraps seems to serve no valid purpose other than pissing on JS> the so-called "OPUS Spirit". The Opus Spirit never demanded that anyone sauce their free gifts with code, and I'm sure some who've published every line have spent some time wondering about the wisdom of having done so. Trev's point about people wanting more and more without putting much if anything back is not lost on me at least. JS> My guess is if they released everything to the public JS> domaine, no one would do anything with it anyway, who JS> knows. Those that did have it were unable to do much with JS> it anyway, other than Scott Dudley. Well I'm not running the Jon Valentyn, finished off by Trev, 1.79 build, so I really can't comment on its quality; I confess that I haven't run Opus since 1.03b, though I've maintained filebase support for all Opus versions since 1.01. You'd know well enough that no program is ever 'finished', though :) And you should know that Scott Dudley had no access to Opus code; he cloned it from how he saw it working, 'clean room', and from published specifications. Subsequent Max and Squish development has demonstrated his own coding skills clearly enough, I'd have thought. I could dig all that up from old tapes if I badly enough wanted to spend a weekend on it, but I seem to recall even Wynn and/or Doug Boone helping put paid to the 'stolen code' rumour, many years ago; I haven't heard it since. IS> Disclaimer: I'm still in occasional contact with Trev, JS> Trev is the only one I've "met" that truly had any interest JS> in OPUS, and did something about it. Just recently, maybe. I don't think you're crediting all the effort that Doug Boone put into it over quite a long period - just for one - not to mention all of the third-party utility authors who have supported Opus over the years, without whom it would have been a Lesser Work indeed .. I wasn't around much later, I dropped the MEADOW about when Jon Morby started doing some stuff, and remember hearing once or twice later that Jon Valentyn was working on it, and only got curious again when Trev surprised me (and probably others) with his more recent efforts to keep the ol' dog alive .. JS> Trev IS the OPUS JS> spirit, I suspect Winn Wagner and his gang are far removed JS> from this icon of BBS'ing, at least nothing I've seen in JS> the past 6-7 years has indicated otherwise. You'll have read Trev's latest missive by now. He's smelt the coffee too .. leaving sentimentality about our glorious past behind, to get on with what's happening now. As opposed to myself, too old a dog to keep up with it all :) JS> Personally, I guess I'll switch from OPUS to MAX when the Y2K bug hits. :) A lot might have changed by then. JS> My only "ties" to OPUS is that is what I started with, and JS> am too lazy to change. Actually, I wish I had started with JS> MAX instead, MAX spirit seems more real than OPUS spirit. I dunno, I think the virtual communities that gather around various different efforts are the 'spirit'; it used to be the 'Fidonet spirit' too, regardless of what software you preferred to run. That was the fun of it all, for me. You don't see too much of that anywhere around Fidonet any more - present company excepted, of course :) And I liked Max, not least because it's pretty much like Opus to drive (from either end of the line) if you just unpack it out of the box - which I think is best taken more as a tribute than a rip-off. I ran a DOS/DV Max BBS for about three years, the last two not messing with it much at all; and the last year wondering about how best to interface the best of local BBSin' with the newer Internet stuff that's developing at such a dizzying rate out there, not least because some old Fidonetters have abandoned pioneering sentimentality for functionality that's rapidly becoming accessible to a lot more people .. Cheers, Ian --- * Origin: Puddin'/4 0266-891-847 (01-07AEST) free to a good home (3:626/660) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 195 MEADOW Ref: EFH00000 Date: 11/11/97 From: ROGER SCUDDER Time: 11:35pm \/To: JAN MURPHY (Read 0 times) Subj: fresh start or nothing for Opus? Hello Jan, On Nov 06, 1997 Jan Murphy of 1:161/84 writes: JM> So where do we go from here? JM> I say that if we want to have a new Opus, then it's time we all JM> better knuckle down, hit the books, and learn to code. We can't JM> depend on anyone else to do it. We can't depend on getting the JM> source code. If we want it, we'll have to roll up our sleeves and JM> make it all over again from scratch, and fight for it ourselves. [ ... ] JM> Maybe we don't have enough knowledge and gumption and willingness JM> to work and time among us to pick up and start all over again. JM> If that's the case, then Opus is dead and we'll all have to switch JM> to Max or go off into the Great Meadow in the sky where the ex-Opus JM> sysops go. JM> But I for one am tired of hearing all the whining, all the moans of JM> "isn't it a shame", all the hand-wringing, all the piteous cries JM> that Wynn and Doug and Trev have abandoned us. No, they showed us JM> that cool things could be done if you sat your butt in a chair and JM> learned to code. They have gone on to other things now; that's JM> their right. Now it's our turn to take over and carry on, if we JM> want to. I would be willing to participate in a rewrite of Opus with you, if you are really serious. I already have a jump on the coding skills. I have been coding in C for a few years now. I have been thinking about coding a BBS program for a while, but I prefer to work with others rather than alone. If you are really willing to make a substantial investment of time into a project like this, I will work with you on it. I will tell you right now, thought, I will not do it alone. I am only willing to participate in a cooperative effort. I'm sure there are several ways a project like this could be organized. I can share with you the way I was taught, which is based on proven methods. The first step in any well executed software development cycle is to draw up detailed program specifications or specs. The specs should put into words everything that the program is to do. The specs are like the blueprints for a house. A programmer uses specs to maintain quality and to make sure that a group of people working on the same project stay focused on the common goal. You don't need to be a programmer to make good specs. You do need to know exactly what the program should do. I think that the Opus sysops here should be able to draw up a fine set of specs. If you want this thing to happen you must see that this first step is carried out. Once the specs are written the coding can begin. The coding can be broken down into parts so that several coders can contribute. This would be a good chance for anyone who wants to learn. As long as everyone is working to the same blueprint (specs) the cooperative effort can work. I'm sure that at this point you can see the importance of well written specs. With out them, I'm afraid the project would be on shaky ground. If this sounds like something you would like to invest in, say the word. If not then I'll move along to some other project, but as I have said, I won't try to do this alone. If you want to contact me in private, I have an e-mail address below. The node number is my Mail Only node, so PLEASE DO NOT CRASH MAIL to that address UNLESS IT'S BETWEEN 4:00 AND 5:00am EST which is my ZMH. My wife gets upset when she picks up the phone and no one is there. Regards, Roger Scudder Send private replies to: rscudder@usa.net --- Msgedsq 3.05 * Origin: Hodge-Podge Support BBS, Upper Darby, PA (1:273/404)