From: rhythmnp@THRWHITE.remove-ipn-this   
      
     To: alt.bbs.allsysop   
   >Before we continue, you should try to understand that you're apparently the   
   >exception to all the general statements I made.  You're doing all the things   
   >that I'm getting frustrated because I don't see enough other people doing   
   >them.   
      
   I do put a lot of time into my doors, but I wouldn't say I'm an "exception",   
   because there's a LOT of other door authors and bbs authors putting out new   
   software recently.  In the past 60 days, there have been new doors released   
   (Ambroshia, Lost in the Supermarket), remakes/clones of old doors (Arena   
   Warrior remake), and new releases of old doors (Usurper, LORD/32, Melee,   
   Kentucky Derby, Gutterbowl, and more).  There are certainly a decent number of   
   door authors out there who are actively supporting their games.  Rather than   
   making "general statements" about all door authors, why not mention which door   
   authors in particular that you have a problem with?   
      
   >Go look up the word perhaps.  the re-read the mesages where you have been   
   >slowly changing my mind, if only about you specifically.  Are you looking   
   >for a fight?  I'm not.   
      
   No, I'm not looking for a fight.  But your messages have made it sound like you   
   were.  Why even make a statement like "Perhaps it's that you aren't developing   
   anything remarkable" before finding out what I developed?  Yes, you said the   
   word "perhaps", but that's not helping, since your statement was an insult out   
   of left-field in the first place.   
      
   >you should see how few others are doing it in the same fashion, and instead   
   >simply trying to make a quick buck.  You appear to be taking this as a   
   >personal attack no matter how many times I agree with you, and that kind of   
   >precludes you from having anything weighted and considered to say about it,   
   >since it's not a personal attack.   
      
   I'm not taking it as a _personal_ attack, but rather I'm taking it as an attack   
   upon all door authors, which is what your initial messages basically amounted   
   to.  For example, your statement of  "I got a speech recently in email about   
   how some of these door developers are 'mom-and-pop' businesses just trying to   
   survive.  Bullshtt.  They are opportunists taking advantage of the fact that we   
   have nowhere else to go if we want to attempt to revive the communities we   
   remember back then." -- you say you're not looking for a fight, but you're   
   posting garbage like that, basically attacking all bbs authors and door   
   authors.   
      
   >And everyone knows   
   >that ME is crap and 98 simply is too old to  support some of the stuff I   
   >need, maybe not for the BBS itself, but for keeping the internet connection   
   >smooth and secure.   
      
   Shrug, a lot of sysops run BBS's on 98/ME with a lot of other servers on the   
   side, without having any qualms.  Sounds like you might just be picky.  If you   
   legitimately need Windows NT/2k/XP, then yes I'll admit that these OS's run DOS   
   programs rather slowly.  A simple solution, if you have the spare cash (or   
   spare parts!), is to use 2 computers for your BBS.  Throw the 32-bit stuff on   
   one computer with Win2000 or XP, and throw the 16-bit stuff on the other   
   computer (running Win98) on an rlogin sub-bbs.  The modern BBS software lets   
   you do this fairly easily, and the connection is seamless to the user due to   
   the way rlogin works.   
      
   >But that's where you're wrong.  By the letter of it, LORD is still   
   >"supported", but all they did was change the ansis and the config menus,   
   >they didn't port it (yet)   
      
   Actually, LORD *has* been ported. The Win32 port of LORD has been in beta for a   
   month or two.  LORD/X (*nix port) is also in the works and possibly in beta.   
      
   When you consider that the LORD source is 30,000 lines of messy Pascal, porting   
   it is no small task.   
      
   > they didn't add signifigant features   
      
   At the very least, the author adding a scripting language so the game is   
   significantly more customizeable.  Not bad.   
      
   Yes, there's no huge breakthrough new features -- but this is intentional.  The   
   current LORD author has been active in many BBS message networks, and the   
   overwhelming message from players is NOT to drastically change the game, that   
   it's a classic and the game should mostly remain the same in terms of features.   
    So once again, contrary to your prior claims, door authors ARE listening to   
   their user base.  And what their user base is saying, doesn't agree with your   
   personal views that you keep insisting are necessary for these doors.   
      
   >all v3 has over   
   >v2 of TW2002 is that it worked in some of the features we already got via   
   >3rd party utilities, and in the process removed access to other features   
   >that 3rd party utilities provided.   
      
   I can tell that you're not a TradeWars fanatic :)  v3 was a ***HUGE***   
   improvement over v2.  v3 was the first version with true multi-node support,   
   this drastically changed the gameplay.  (Gary Martin's last few v2 betas tried   
   to add multinode support, but failed).  v3 also raised the max sectors to   
   20,000 and added a DPMI compiled version of the game.  The current author also   
   created TradeWars Gold which allows you to make significant edits/changes to   
   the game.  Yes, those old 3rd-party utilities don't work (understandable   
   considering how much the game structure changed w/ v3), but most aren't needed   
   since you can do the same things and more, with TW Gold.   
      
   > In the case of   
   >TW, the TWGS is great, but doesn't preclude expectations that could   
   >rightfully be placed on the BBS version.   
      
   I admit that it's a bit shoddy that the BBS version of TW hasn't gotten all of   
   the new features in the TWGS version, but whatever... 32bit BBS software like   
   Synchronet, WorldGroup, and Wildcat5/Winserver can connect to TWGS via rlogin,   
   so you can effectively run TWGS "on" your BBS... to your users, it's a seamless   
   connection like a door.  And meanwhile you can also leave TWGS's telnet server   
   on and get direct telnet players as well as the BBS players.   
      
   I think the reason that we're having such disagreements here is simply that   
   you've been "out of the loop" with BBS software for too long, and simply aren't   
   appreciative of (or even ware of) how much time the authors still put into   
   their products, and how many new features have been added in the recent   
   versions.   
      
   I would highly suggest that you start reading a BBS news site like Vagabond's   
   site http://bbsnews.vbsoft.org/ and keep more up-to-date with new releases :)   
      
   Regards,   
   Evan   
      
   ---   
    * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out   
   free usenet!   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92   
   Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)