Jim Bianchi wrote:
>
> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten the name
> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I meant all
> right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100 box, PBBS would be
> ideal (either that or HBBS).
>

For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of compiled
MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or MBYE to build
a nice RCP/M system.

g.

Bill wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:23:36 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
>
>
>>ISTR that the very first BBS (Christensen's CBBS) was actually on a CPM
>>system, circa 1980, and, hope not to be really wrong, that I have find
>>the actual BASIC code of it
>
> Christensen wrote in assembler, not basic.
>
> Try 1977-1978 for a time frame
>
> There was an article in Byte about that first system
>
> Bill

....and if you want the sources to v3.5, gimme a couple of days to find out
what happened to it.

g.

geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
news:_eKdnf8p_YuunvzVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:

> Jim Bianchi wrote:
>>
>> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten
>> the name
>> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I
>> meant all right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100
>> box, PBBS would be ideal (either that or HBBS).
>>
>
> For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of compiled
> MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or MBYE to build
> a nice RCP/M system.
>
> g.
>
Are you implying that PBBS was not a "true" authentic CP/M BBS? I
think not!

Ian

Ian Cottrell wrote:
> geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
> news:_eKdnf8p_YuunvzVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:
>
>> Jim Bianchi wrote:
>>>
>>> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten
>>> the name
>>> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I
>>> meant all right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100
>>> box, PBBS would be ideal (either that or HBBS).
>>>
>>
>> For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of compiled
>> MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or MBYE to build
>> a nice RCP/M system.
>>
>> g.
>>
> Are you implying that PBBS was not a "true" authentic CP/M BBS? I
> think not!
>

Oh by no means did I mean that! My choice of words was rather poor I
suppose.

My memory is fuzzy, but PBBS was self-hosted, correct? Didn't need BYE
to handle the modem? 99% of the CP/M boards I called back in the day were
RCP/M systems or other types that required BYE to handle the communication
layer. Self-hosted systems like ROS, PICS, Citadel, etc. were not as
common, at least in the 206 area.

If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my mind.

g.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:12:22 -0500
geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote:

> If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my
> mind.

It shouldn't, Gene. Ian sent me a copy and I brought it up with
ZBYE very easily. I had intended to set up a BBS with it in the
mid-90s, but got busy on other things. In the time when PBBS was
one of the best systems around, nearly everyone wrote in assembly.
Only a few used high-level languages for system-level software like
this.

Hal

geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
news:yZydncTJydhbPv7VnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:

> Ian Cottrell wrote:
>> geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
>> news:_eKdnf8p_YuunvzVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:
>>
>>> Jim Bianchi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten
>>>> the name
>>>> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I
>>>> meant all right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100
>>>> box, PBBS would be ideal (either that or HBBS).
>>>>
>>>
>>> For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of
>>> compiled MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or
>>> MBYE to build a nice RCP/M system.
>>>
>>> g.
>>>
>> Are you implying that PBBS was not a "true" authentic CP/M BBS? I
>> think not!
>>
>
> Oh by no means did I mean that! My choice of words was rather poor I
> suppose.
>
> My memory is fuzzy, but PBBS was self-hosted, correct? Didn't need
> BYE to handle the modem? 99% of the CP/M boards I called back in the
> day were RCP/M systems or other types that required BYE to handle the
> communication layer. Self-hosted systems like ROS, PICS, Citadel,
> etc. were not as common, at least in the 206 area.
>
> If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my mind.
>
>
> g.
>
As Hal has already pointed out, PBBS DID run on top of BYE (or ZBYE for
Z-System users). I spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that
the setting for PBBS did NOT overlap with those for BYE and that,
once BYE was running properly, PBBS wouldn't not futz with it.

And, as Hal also pointed out, most major undertaking were written
in assembler in those days. Some systems only had 48K of TPA and
2 MHz systems did not have a lot of horsepower. Assembler was a
must!

No offence taken, Gene. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Ian

Hal wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:12:22 -0500
> geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote:
>
>> If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my
>> mind.
>
> It shouldn't, Gene. Ian sent me a copy and I brought it up with
> ZBYE very easily. I had intended to set up a BBS with it in the
> mid-90s, but got busy on other things. In the time when PBBS was
> one of the best systems around, nearly everyone wrote in assembly.
> Only a few used high-level languages for system-level software like
> this.
>
The reason I think it's unique is that as far as I know, there are no more
than 3 BBS programs written in 100% assembly for any platform and all
three lived on CP/M.

g.