+================================================================+
| |
| Questions and Answers on ProBoard's Future |
| |
| From the August 7, 1998 IRC discussion |
| with former ProBoard BBS Developer Philippe Leybaert |
| |
+================================================================+
This is a minature log of just the questions that Philippe answered
today, along with the questions asked. Everything else was removed.
The complete set of detailed logs and this page in text form can be
downloaded here.
Philippe's responses are in red!
[pcMike]
So Philippe, please tell us what you would like to see happen with
ProBoard and it's future development.
[Philippe]
hmmm... I haven' prepared a speech or anything :-)
[Philippe]
Ok, since I don't really know 100% how I want to do everything,
maybe you can ask some specific questions?
[nuku]
Phil: Just tell us if you want to make big money with the PB source
or if you want to keep PB alive?
[Philippe]
I don't intend to make money on it, I just don't want to lose any.
[pcMike]
Philippe: did you read the email regarding Branislav being
intrested in taking over it's development, along with a team of willing
pb programmers to assist him?
[Philippe]
I did, but does he have the time?
[cricetus]
Philippe: Can you tell us about your vision of PBs future?
[cricetus]
Well. You probably have one.
[Philippe]
I do
[Jobbert]
Phil: Did you receive my email a few days ago (about UltimateBoard)
[Philippe]
Jobbert: yes
[Jobbert]
Phil: What do you think about it?
[Philippe]
just a sec
[Philippe]
Ok, hold on, long sentences coming :-)
[Philippe]
I would still like to be involved with the development, but I'd
like to have the "work" done by someone else
[Philippe]
I don't want to make any more money of it
[pcMike]
Are you willing to let it become freeware?
[Tom_Torfs]
Philippe, so you would be prepared to turn ProBoard freeware?
[Philippe]
I would be prepared to do that
[tB-]
Ok... Phil, would you be willing to make PB free (release a keygenerator
for all those who want )
[tB-]
If so, would you be willing to also release the source under the GPL so
people can participate in the development?
[Philippe]
No, I don't want to do that, sorry.
[Philippe]
It will get "messy" that way
[tB-]
Philippe: Do you agree with the keygenerator though?
[Philippe]
If it is freeware, you won't need a key generator of course
[tB-]
Would you be willing to release a keygenerator for the current 2.16
release?
[Philippe]
No, it would be unfair to the people who already registered
[cricetus]
What about the idea, that programmers put themselves together
(like the PHP or APACHE team) and do work on the new, enhanced
version of PB (which lacks maybe of some "secret" code you did for it)
[cricetus]
This PB would be open sourced
[cricetus]
kinda Mozilla
[cricetus]
i.e. one free Version
[cricetus]
and one which must be registered.
[cricetus]
You would be paid a flat fee
[cricetus]
and then per sold unit.
[Philippe]
I'm not interested in getting paid for it
[Philippe]
I just don't want to lose any more money, because that's what's
happening now
[pcMike]
Philippe: do you want to appoint specific programmers to handle the
development, or what?
[Philippe]
something like that
[nuku]
phil: why not (releasing under the GPL), you could manage the versions
and merge the fixes as does Linus with the Linux Kernel? And why are
are you "losing money at the moment"?
[Philippe]
The website (www.proboard.com) for example
[nuku]
okay, i understand, and why not GPL?
[pcMike]
Philippe: you can have a website and domain name hosted for as little
as $6 a month these days.
[Philippe]
I just don't like it. Is that a good reason? :-)
[DMurphy]
Philippe - What if we were to offer a "support team" that handles
releases, information, a "user registry" etc.... we'd interface with
the "code team" and check with you before any "official" releases go
out the door.... is that a good idea?
[Philippe]
And who will build the release?
[DMurphy]
the code team would do so... those who you feel are fit to be
working on the code... people such as frank and myself would be on
the "support team" and we'd be the "first line of defense" :)
[Tom_Torfs]
I would be willing to port the DOS version (2.16) to OS/2 32-bit
text mode and continue development of the DOS and OS/2 versions.
[Philippe]
Tom: we can talk about that
[Tom_Torfs]
Would you be willing to license the 2.16 source code to that
purpose for free ?
[Philippe]
2.16 is a sensitive issue, because so many people payed for it
[Tom_Torfs]
OK, how about an earlier version , then ?
[Philippe]
That doesn't make any difference
[Tom_Torfs]
But the people who paid for it would
[Tom_Torfs]
gain more if the development continued, then if it
[Tom_Torfs]
stopped, wouldn't they ?
[Philippe]
Yes, but new users will get it for free, while "older" will have
payed for it
[Tom_Torfs]
But isn't that a price worth paying to keep PB alive ?
[Tom_Torfs]
(I myself payed for it too, and have no problem with that)
[Philippe]
I don't have a problem with it, but will they? (the users)
[Tom_Torfs]
What would you suggest otherwise ?
[Philippe]
I would turn the 2.16 page and "forget" about it.
[Philippe]
I mean: leave it like it is
[Tom_Torfs]
But that would probably mean
[Tom_Torfs]
that there would never be an OS/2 version.
[Philippe]
Says who?
[Philippe]
3.0?
[Tom_Torfs]
Who is going to invest all the effort in building a GUI OS/2
program etc ?
[Philippe]
you [g]
[Tom_Torfs]
I don't know anything about GUI program; I'm good at text mode
programming though
[Tom_Torfs]
That's why I suggested to port the text version of PB.
[Philippe]
It's not that hard. I had to learn it too
[Tom_Torfs]
Not all people are that much into GUI as far as BBSing is concerned
anyway
[DMurphy]
here's the thing though --whomever the "code team" becomes is going
to need to base 3.0 off of the 2.16 code (I'm assuming).... now, if
3.0 is a derivative work of 2.16, and 3.0 is free, why not make 2.16
free?
[Tom_Torfs]
I would agree with that view also.
[Philippe]
The existing users, remember?
[cricetus]
Philippe: I understand that PB is still your product, and I
understand what you feel about it. I can understand the problem
with 2.16 since so many people paid for it, but I cannot see what
your current position to all those proposals is. What is your
opinion, what is the thing you want to do with PB? (imho no one
has something against a "free" 3.0 of PB in about six months,
even those users who paid for 2.x)
[cricetus]
A free 3.0 is better than no 3.0 =)
[Philippe]
Exactly
[Philippe]
Let's only talk about 3.0
[DMurphy]
okay
[cricetus]
So - what's your idea of 3.0, and how it will happen. :)
[Philippe]
I haven't made up my mind yet about 2.16
[Philippe]
I wouldn't mind coordinating the development, but the "hard work"
is taking too much of my time
[vertigo]
hrm, this remark was about the subject 5 minutes ago, but then
again, here we go :)
[vertigo]
I think 2.16 is important, because it's here, and 3.0 isn't.
You just said that 2.16 would be a problem because so many people
paid for it. But they actually have a solid product that they have
used for a while.
[vertigo]
Plus that the bbs market has changed dramatically since 1996 or
something, so they still value for money. BBS's are almost wiped
away from the earth. Don't you think the people who bought 2.xx
should be supported with future updates and additions, and
[vertigo]
don't you feel the 3.0 version should then be a lot more sensitive
because people have paid for it and have never even received a final
product, and don't you think it is important for the people who
bought 2.xx to be guaranteed of future updates?
[Philippe]
That's why I only want to discuss 3.0
[Philippe]
2.16 is off-topic as far as I am concerned
[vertigo]
ah, okay.
[Philippe]
Only this:
[Philippe]
I will release a Y2K fix for 2.16
[nuku]
Phillipe: But what will people, especially the ones that registered
the lastest version, think, if you do not release the code and PB
will be completely discontinued? And you say "Let's only talk about
3.0": You must release (at least...
[nuku]
... to a group of some coders the current code!
[Philippe]
Difficult question
[Philippe]
I will not release the complete 2.16 source code
[Philippe]
Just the parts that can be used in 3.0
[nuku]
and then, should people start pb from sratch?? that doesnt work either
....
[nuku]
Should there less features in 3.0 then in current?
[Philippe]
no
[Philippe]
Listen for one second
[Philippe]
About PEXes:
[ldg_jb]
Has the telent deamon with in the proborad code been finished.
[ldg_jb]
proboard
[Philippe]
Yes. Telnet is 99% finished
[Philippe]
It works
[Philippe]
Can I have everyone's attention please?
[Philippe]
no questions please
[Philippe]
One thing about the PEX interface:
[Philippe]
I will NOT make the technology public
[Philippe]
It is pretty advanced, and since it is only applicable to DOS,
[Philippe]
there's no sense in making it public (since I don't really want to)
[Philippe]
I will, however, make the
[apa]
go ahead
[Philippe]
Well, that's about it
[Philippe] :-)
[Philippe]
any comments?
[Oliver]
Philippe: What do you think concret of the idea of a ProBoard
successor? (e.g. UBoard; regd 3.0 Users for free - no more probs
for you!)
[N] MODE:
Philippe sets mode: +o C_Spiess [#Proboard]
[Philippe]
I don't understand
[Oliver]
Did you yet take view on UltimateBoard?
[apa]
Oliver: What is Ultimate Board???
[Oliver]
Did you not receive E-Mail of robert@ultimate-systems.com
[Oliver]
UltimateBoard is a BBS-Program like ProBoard
[apa]
Nope... Not that I am aware of.
[Olivier]
How much of the PB 3.0 code is finished now?
*** C_Spiess sets mode: -oooo ProBot apa DMurphy Frank_pbi
*** C_Spiess sets mode: -v Diadem
*** C_Spiess sets mode: -v Olivier
[C_Spiess] philippe:
S#CK MY D!#K !!!!!!!!!!!!! PROBOARD S#CKS !!!!!! F#CK YOU ALL !!!!!
[N] MODE: C_Spiess sets mode: +i [#Proboard]
[pcMike]
there goes the channel
Session Close: Fri Aug 07 14:51:30 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we switch to #PROBOARD2 due to a channel takeover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Session Start: Fri Aug 07 14:50:26 1998
*** Now talking in #proboard2
[Olivier]
Okay, do i need to repeat my question to philippe?
[Philippe]
yes pls
[cricetus]
Philippe, I am quite disappointed of the whole thing here. It
seems to me that you're only in search for a couple of cheap
programmers without giving them real co-control over the project.
Sorry, if that sounds rude, but that's the impression I have.
I am dissappointed about a 3.0 which didn't show up. I left FTN
more than half a year ago, and still the situation hasn't changed.
[SarahP]
cricetus: well said!
[Philippe]
sarah: you're not the one to talk
Session Close: Fri Aug 07 14:57:17 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we switch back to the original #PROBOARD channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Session Start: Fri Aug 07 14:57:23 1998
*** Now talking in #proboard
.-------------------------------------------------------.
| Topic: The OFFICIAL ProBoard IRC Support Channel |
| SetBy: Scanner Tue, Feb 03 1998 at 12:42pm |
'-------------------------------------------------------'
[Philippe]
ONE channel please
[pcMike]
can i ask you something philippe?
[Philippe]
sure
[pcMike]
first of all, will you be willing to hand over the entire 3.0 source
code to the new developer(s) or will that stay in your control?
[Philippe]
I will hand over the complete source
[pcMike]
thats good to hear.. okay, secondly, i heard you mention that you
would not release the pex source.. does that mean that proboard 3.0
will not include the pex support?
[Philippe]
yes, but 32 bit PEXes will be totally different from DOS PEXes
[Philippe]
So, one has nothing to do with the other
[pcMike]
What areas of the code are finished, and what needs work? You said
telnet is 99% finished (still no DOS door support right)? What about
the 32-bit PEX support? is it almost done? what areas of the code
still need work?
[Philippe]
The "technology" is ready, but not implemented in code yet (PEXes
is what I'm talking about)
[Philippe]
telnet is 100% done, except for the door support
[tB-]
Philippe: How long will it take before the door support is complete?
[Tom_Torfs]
OK, about this PEX interface: I could reproduce it because I
reverse-engineered it and know the details of the interface.
That way future DOS versions could still support PEXes without
you having to give away your interface code.
[Philippe]
Tom: if you can do that, ok
[pcMike]
phillipe: did you plan to allow telnet to support doors eventually?
[Philippe]
pcMike: I planned it, but it is very difficult
[Tom_Torfs]
However, it would be a lot easier if I had at least *some* DOS
source code to start from, rather than build an entire new ProBoard
...
[Philippe]
I don't want to discuss 2.16, and that's final
[Philippe]
(maybe at another time)
[pcMike]
will it be possible to support doors at all using the current telnet
implimintation, or would the telnet need to be redesigned from
scratch (using fossil compatibility)?
[Philippe]
pcMike: it can be reused
[pcMike]
Philippe: great! ok thats all the questions i have for now. thanks a
lot.. i have to go now but i will be loging the rest. bye!
[Tom_Torfs]
Are any datat structures for 3.0 known yet ? That way I could
start on PBUTIL and maybe also PROCFG...
[Philippe]
They're basically 2.16 -compatible
[Tom_Torfs]
Ah, OK. And will the utilities need to be rebuilt from scratch or
will you provide (part of) the source code ?
[Philippe]
I will provide full source code for PBUTIL
[Diadem]
(I think this question is CURSED or something but here it goes..
again) Will the source be going to a team or an indivudal? What will
the requirements to join the team be if there is one?
[Diadem]
Also, will you be selling the source or giving it away?
[Philippe]
I will probably give it away to ONE person, who will be in charge
of recruiting other developers
[Tom_Torfs]
OK, is this about PBUTIL settled then ? You provide me with the
source code and I port it to Win32 and OS/2 console programs ?
[Philippe]
I never said I would give YOU the full source code.
[Tom_Torfs]
Do you intend to make it public then ?
[Philippe]
Tom: Earlier I said: we can talk about that
[Tom_Torfs]
OK, do you want to do that via email afterwards, perhaps ?
[Philippe]
Sure
[Philippe]
yep
[nuku]
I still cannot understand why Phillipe simply doesn't release the
source. BBS scene is almost dead... And that is a fact. Nobody will
kill him for that.... (and maybe less people as expected will do
somethin with the code). Of course I understand...
[Philippe]
:-)
[Philippe]
It seems there are many observers, but few participants
[Philippe]
I'm just collecting suggestions here...
[DMurphy]
a) The Code Team -- this is the person (or people) who are
developing ProBoard.... such as Tom Torfs, Branislav (maybe),
etc.... they do the development work -- the "hard stuff"
[N] The time is now 3:30pm.
[DMurphy]
b) The Support Team -- these are people like Frank Robbins,
Mike Ehlert, Art Stark, Gilles Hemburg, myself, etc. who
handle user questions, keep track of who's using ProBoard,
write documentation, answer questions, etc....
[DMurphy]
and c) The Advisory Board -- that would be yourself. The
easy way to keep your hand in PB development. [Grin]
[DMurphy]
as for the website that you're losing money on.... if you can get
the DNS entry transferred to say Mike or Frank or myself, we all
have Websites hosted on fast servers... I don't know about the other
guys, but adding virtual hosts for me is easy. :)
[Philippe]
Dennis: you have a point.
[Philippe]
Dennis: We'll have to talk about that
[comatose]
philippe: do you have no time to code pcb or little time .
[Philippe]
comatose: little time
[comatose]
er proB hehe =)
[comatose]
can i make a suggestion..
[comatose]
phil: just have a coding team that does most of the dirty coding
work and have them send you there changes..
[comatose]
then do the final builds
[comatose]
that way..
[comatose]
you always have the latest and no one else has 100% of the code
[comatose]
finding people commited is prob the most important
[Philippe]
comatose: this is one of the options I'm considering
[DMurphy]
but I think we _have_ that group already -- there's a staunch
ProBoard following... we have a great "unofficial" support group,
and if we make them official, I can only imagine what we'll get!
[Philippe]
The support part is the easiest part...
[cricetus]
1) Phil, did you ever say "Thank you" to Sarah and her sister for
the wonderful, long lasting support for the PB community? 2) The
whole event this evening sucked. You seem to have no idea what
you want actually. The whole story repeats. If you continue this
way PB will fully die, the turnaround must come, the sooner the
better. -- That's all what I've to say for this evening. Just
another thing: I would be willing to pay one thousand dollars
(1000$) f
[cricetus]
registered users.
[cricetus]
1000$ seem to be fair.
[Philippe]
1000$ for what?
[cricetus]
ProBoard.
[cricetus]
And its future.
[Philippe]
1000$ for what?
[cricetus]
For Proboard.
[cricetus]
For a open sourced one.
[cricetus]
Bevore there could be a deal, there must be the possibility to have
a look onto the source code.
[Philippe]
I'll keep it in mind
[cricetus]
But I am seriously interested.
[Philippe]
I didn't say you weren't. But we have to talk about it first
[Philippe]
I would like to call it a day... It's getting late here....
[Philippe]
comatose: I believe you, but you can't expect me to make a decision
about this in a one hour IRC session.... I really have to go now.
[Philippe]
bye
[end of text]
|