==============================================================================
= Messages from Andrew Milner and Joel Rickets regarding RA32 =
= and rumors of RemoteAccess being dead =
= =
==============================================================================
Message #2126 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-09-95 15:00:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: Charlie Wardick
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW> Yeh right, and the captain goes last! It would appear that
CW> Andrew has abondoned ship MONTHS ago. It amazes me the in
CW> light of the hundreds of messages a week regarding the death
CW> of RA and his alledged moderatorship of this echo, that he
CW> would come forward and actually just inform us of something.
CW> Beta3 was stagnant for months and I believe it has been even
CW> longer with this Beta4.
Beta 5 is basically ready, except for some bugs remaining to be squashed,
including the USERON corruption bug that started appearing with Beta 3. We
can't exactly make a release with that still in there. I will call Andrew
tonight and see what the status of the next beta is.
Joel
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2127 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-09-95 15:04:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: BRYAN FULLER
Subject: RA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BF> should tell you something.. I've heard directly from some
BF> people in
BF> contact with RAndrew that 2.50 will probly be the last, if
BF> it even amkes
BF> it, version of RA.
Version of 16-bit RA, you mean. 2.50 may be the last upgrade of the
DOS-based RA product (except for bug fixes).
We (InterScape Development) are in the process of developing RA 32, which
will be a 32-bit multi-line multi-tasking Internet-aware network-aware (just
about everything-aware :) BBS/Internet server package. We plan to release it
at ONE BBSCON next year.
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2128 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-09-95 15:15:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: All
Subject: Beyond RemoteAccess v2.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are various rumors flying around, mostly in this echo.
1. Andrew Milner is dead/quitting. RemoteAccess 2.50 will never be released.
RA 2.50 will be released if I have to fly to Australia and mug Andrew for the
source code and finish it myself. Actually, Beta 5 (the final beta) is
nearly complete; only a few bugs remain to be squashed before it is tested
and then released. My estimate (please remember that this is an estimate) is
about 1 month.
2. RemoteAccess 2.50 will be the last version of RA released.
RA 2.50 may be the last DOS version of RA released, but it will not be the
last version released. InterScape Development is already developing
RemoteAccess 32, a 32-bit Windows 95/NT BBS and Internet Server platform. It
will have most of the features of RA, plus integrated Internet support,
multi-line support, and multi-node support (i.e. the BBS will be able to span
multiple computers), all without clumsy DOS multi-taskers. DOS doors will be
backward-supported, though RA32 will have the ability to load 32-bit add-on
modules that integrate with the BBS functionality. In addition, an
object-oriented configuration and programming system will permit even more
flexibility than the current version of RemoteAccess.
Over time, the DOS platform has become more and more outdated for these type
of server applications. Internet capability is extremely difficult (read:
time-consuming, expensive, and buggy) to implement under DOS. Many of the
capabilities that more and more Sysops want, including corporate customers,
require the abilities of a real operating system. RemoteAccess 32 will
provide that new platform, which we plan to have ready for ONE BBSCON next
year.
Joel Ricketts
Product Development Engineer
InterScape Development
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2240 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-11-95 23:45:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: All
Subject: RemoteAccess 32 and OS/2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I posted my last message, I've received a flood of messages:
1. Asking to be beta sites.
The package is too rough to let anyone see at the moment. In other words,
it is not complete enough for anyone to use for anything but debugging.
We will begin looking for beta sites in 4-5 months. I will post a message
in RA_BETA and in this echo when we "open" for applications.
2. Where's the OS/2 version, xxxx? (replace xxxx by the insult of your
choice)
Many people are asking if we will have an OS/2 version of the software. The
answer is a bit long...
Not initially, for several reasons. The first reason, quite simply, is a
marketing issue: Windows 95 has, I believe, already outsold Warp, giving us a
broader market. Version 1.00 is going to be pretty critical; sales of it
will give us the capital for continued development. We need to do everything
possible to make the first version as successful as possible. I know it
sounds hard-hearted, but we have to go where the money is.
The second reason comes from IBM themselves. In order to support the
multi-server capacity we want to put into RemoteAccess 32, we have to purchase
IBM's DCE development kit which, I believe, costs about $2000. That's not
too bad, but IBM also requires a licensing fee of about $50 per copy for the
library. That's $50 we have to add to the price of every copy of the
software, which reduces the number of copies we'll sell and thus our profit.
The question of demonstration versions also becomes an issue with
non-royalty-free libraries.
In contrast, Microsoft provides those same libraries for free to anyone who
wants to use them. They also provide an excellent Developer support program
through which they send about 20-30 CD-ROM's every 2-3 months, containing
everything from the complete contents of almost every book published by
Microsoft Press to Microsoft Windows NT v3.51 in Taiwanese, if we happen to
need it. This program costs $500 per year, and includes everything, including
free access to their technical support staff for development questions.
The third reason is, quite simply, that the people developing the package
have more experience with the Windows platform than with OS/2. If we were to
develop for OS/2, we would have to learn a whole new API, new calls, new
utilities, etc. This would take time, and time is not our friend here. We
have 10 months to develop an entire BBS *AND* Internet server from the ground
up, and have no time to spare for relearning what we know.
I am not intending to start an OS/2 versus Windows debate here at all. For
OS/2 users who scoff at Windows, please try NT out and see what you think.
All in all, they are approximately equivalent in power and efficiency as far
as server applications, with NT have a slight upper edge simply because of
greater software availability. From a PURELY technical standpoint, OS/2
would be as good an option. The business considerations, though, most be
weighed as well.
We are not a multi-million-dollar company. We are a small firm who is
investing a great deal of time and (from our perspective) a lot of money into
this project. We only have the resources to do this once. If it doesn't
fly, and begin paying for its own development after the first version, that's
it. I think we can make it fly, and I think the project will take off like a
rocket, attracting third-party developers for many reasons, not the least of
which is the strong tradition of third-party support that RA has always had.
One important note, though: we are planning to use the RPC (Remote Procedure
Call) standard for inter-server communication. This standard is completely
cross-platform, and supports everything from Windows 95 workstations all the
way up to DEC VAX systems, including Unix and OS/2. After the first version
is available for Windows 95/NT, we would like to at that point consider
developing an OS/2 version and a Unix version that would be fully
inter-operable with the Windows 95/NT version (i.e. the two servers could
communicate and exchange data seamlessly). After version 1.00, we may well
have the capital to invest in a such a project.
3. But I don't care about all of that. I just want to run my board!
I received about 15 responses to my message in the first day since it
appeared. Many of them were positive (wow! great! can I beta test it?) but
my announcement has also generated some negative remarks from a few people.
Several of the themes were repeated, and I'd like to address these here.
I'll break this into subtopics. Each of these has appeared in messages to
me:
a. What if I don't want to run Internet? Fidonet's just fine.
Fine, then don't. RemoteAccess 32 will have at least *SOME* support
internally for Fidonet. Some of it may be provided by third-party
applications. However, we do plan to continue supporting Fidonet while
providing a way for the long-distance transport to be accomplished through
Internet. Internet, as you probably already know, is just a transport
medium.
It can send newsgroups, Internet E-mail, or fidonet .PKT files. The only
difference is that it's a bit cheaper than sending 10 meg a day
long-distance.
b. I don't want to grow and expand. It's just a hobby. I'm happy with my x
lines. I don't need server applications.
To begin with, you are running a server application. A BBS is an application
which provides information to other, different applications on physically
seperate machines. This makes it, by definition, a server application.
The idea of RA32 is to merge the capabilities of Internet servers and those
of BBS's. In other words, to permit BBS users to access Internet functions (if
the Sysop so chooses), and to permit Internet users to access the facilities
offered by BBS's.
At the core, what we're talking about is:
1. Taking RemoteAccess and making it multi-line (i.e. able to run more than
one node on a single computer.
2. Making it more configurable. Since it's object oriented, you can
re-program almost any section of the BBS.
3. Making it easier to administrate. This leaves you, as a Sysop, free to
concentrate on creating rather than administrating.
4. Making it more expandable. The more resources you've got, the better it
runs. But it'll run on a single, 8 meg machine with about 300 meg HD space
(total -- that probably includes a few download areas to boot).
5. Making it upgradable. We need a package to which enhancements can be made
without breaking old features and doors, etc. This is one of the primary
things holding back development with 2.50; we've gotten locked in by
standards.
6. Making it networkable. The new technologies available now are providing
alternatives to phone lines. While phone lines may be enough for your use,
others are looking for Internet connectivity, X.25 support, ISDN support, and
much more.
In short, we're not talking about eliminating old features. We're talking
about creating a rich, new platform that provides all the capabilities of the
old one PLUS a bunch of new ones.
c. Windows 95 sucks. It's not a real operating system. It's just a stopgap
until NT.
It is, whether you happen to like it or not. Windows 95 and NT are so
similar, by the way, that a single version of the software runs in 32-bit
mode on both of them. The API is *ALMOST* identical (there are a total of
about 20 functions that NT supports that 95 doesn't, and they're not very
commonly used). In other words, I beg to differ. Windows 95 *IS* NT, though
it has had some of the memory-consuming features removed to make it run on
the kind of systems most people have today.
You're right, in that it is a stop-gap. It is a version of NT that most
people can run without going out and buying huge amounts of memory and HD
space. There's a huge list of things it doesn't have (high-performance
file-server support, resource security, multi-processor support)... but most
people don't need those things. However, 32-bit applications for 95 run
unmodified on NT (and not in "emulation" mode -- they're Win32 API apps).
The purpose is to encourage developers to write Win32 apps, so that when NT
does grow in popularity, and when system prices drop enough that "the rest of
us" can run it, that there'll be a software base.
d. I don't want RA32. I want a real BBS. And everyone agrees with me.
That's not what we see from our sales figures. What we see, and hear, is
that people want things that RA 2.02 just can't deliver, and that DOS can't
deliver. They want multi-line. They want Internet support. They want
multi-player games that can handle 20 or 30 people at once. They want
ultimate configurability, and they want easy. Finally, they want graphical
interfaces (RIP doesn't cut it for most of them).
What we see is our market share falling as technology moves on. Our choices
are to sigh and ignore it, or to provide what the market wants, grow, and
expand. We do plan to continue supporting those who just want to run a BBS;
we're just suggesting that if you want the latest and greatest toys, you need
to check our RemoteAccess 32.
Sorry to take up bandwidth here, but I wanted to post a follow-up to help
answer some of the questions I've received and hopefully reduce the wear and
tear on my fingers.
Joel Ricketts
Product Development Engineer
InterScape Development
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2241 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-11-95 23:49:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: All
Subject: Message from Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our phone conversation a couple evenings ago, Andrew asked me to
cross-post the following message from RA Beta into RA Support. It just
showed up on our server, so I'm posting it here.
Message #74 - RA Beta
Date: 11-07-95 12:07:16
From: andrew milner
To: All
Subject: The rumour machine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still alive.
I'm in good health.
The source code is not in a mess.
I'm not planning on selling it to anyone, least of all Bo Bendtsen.
Development on RA 2.50 has been slowed down due to a lack of time on my part.
I am planning on releasing a gamma version of 2.50 shortly.
RA 2.50 will not be the last version of RA, however it might be the last DOS
version.
There is a 32-bit Win95/NT version on the drawing board.
Hope this clears up a few questions and rumours.
later,
andrew.
-+-
* Origin: Wantree Development (3:690/418)
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2373 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 11-12-95 14:26:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: Louie Gonsalves
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG> THANKS!! This has made me feel better. So a beta 5 is in
LG> the works. Thank you soooo much for this msg, it shows a
LG> little light at the end of the tunnel.
LG> As long as RA is still in development, I'm happy. Tell
LG> Andrew that we are all wishing for a Merry Christmas! =-)
It had *BETTER* be out before Christmas...
Joel
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2374 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 11-12-95 14:50:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: Louie Gonsalves
Subject: RA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG> So ya'll own RA now or what? Tell us some more... I thougt
LG> RA is a reg trademark of Wantree dev and Andrew Milner...
No, the RA32 project is a cooperative effort between InterScape and Wantree.
Maybe we'll sue Microsoft about their "Remote Access". That'd provide some
development capital (though I'm not sure if we want to take on Microsoft's
lawyers).
LG> Answer: Never mind, your last message after this one
LG> answered it fairly well. [Win95/NT, for those of you that
LG> missed it.]
We'll try to continue to support the DOS-based RA. However, by the time it's
available, nearly everyone will have the 8 meg RAM it takes to run RA32. The
RAM is the only real issue (and anyone running multiple nodes under DESQView
will have at least that much). The people who may be hurt a bit by it are
those running multiple DOS boxes on a LAN (like us -- we have about 30 2-meg
DOS machines in a rack-mount). However, I'm thinking about writing a silly,
cheesy little host program that'll use those as "modem holders" for the main
server. The server should be able to handle 16 to 32 users with no problem
on a single box.
LG> But a word of caution: DO NOT stop ALL development on DOS
LG> RA, PLEASE. Many of us will probably not be able to afford
LG> RA32, or the machinery to run it on. Please do not give in
LG> to greed, and continue to offer a BBS/Server package that is
LG> of top quality, and reasonably priced as RA is at this time.
'Tis not greed, 'tis ambition!
Seriously, though, we will continue to support RA in the DOS implementation
until RA32 comes out, and perhaps beyond. It will all depend on sales
figures. Sounds cold-hearted, but please remember that development of an
equivalent feature for DOS takes about 10 times as long (including debugging)
as for RA32. The reasons are based in the limitations of DOS (including
memory management, inter-process communication, file-sharing vs.
client-server architecture, and other issues). Essentially, the Win32
platform provides a wealth of services that just aren't present under DOS.
Let's take a quick example: watching a user-dial-in node under DOS versus
under RA32. Since DOS doors take over all comm-port functions, this means
that I *HAVE* to write a TSR (with Win32, the process integrates into the BBS
kernel). Writing TSR's is tricky at best, so that adds a lot of development
time. I'm severely limited as to memory usage, since it's a TSR. I can't
call any DOS functions, and I have to be careful about NetBIOS functions. I
have to interface directly to the low-level transport functions to send my
data, and have to worry about packet failures, etc. All in all, the thing
takes, say, 100 hours of work.
Now, look at RA32. When a remote node requests to attach, the kernel can
handle that. It simply "forks" the data stream it's already sending to the
modem, sending it to two places at once. To do this, I establish a
high-level RPC function call, called ReadData or something like that
(actually, it'll be handled with data pipes, one level above this). Now,
Windows takes care of all the network interface, locating the remote machine,
attaching to it, and as an added bonus, also permits me to handle security
issues through a single, shared set of code I write. Once the information is
received, I simply direct it to the same terminal emulator used for local
mode. I could make the modifications required (though it'll be in v1.00
since it's so significant) in less than 10 hours.
This may sound complicated, but it's actually fairly easy. The advantages
are this: it automatically supports IPX, NetBIOS, and TCP/IP, since Windows
understands them all. It supports Token Ring, Ethernet, ARCnet, and WAN
drivers (in case you're calling in via modem), since Windows supports all
those. And, it'll support any terminal protocol (including RIP) in local
mode as long as the local emulator supports that (and all the local emulator
is is a version of the terminal the user's using, patched to understand data
pipes).
The basic idea is that duplication of code is prevented. I write something
once, and can re-use it easily. This speeds development. Now, since
programmers like to get paid, development time is proportional to cost. This
cost is divided among all the copies we sell. As sales go down, cost per
unit goes up. The end result is that some features for some platforms are
not WORTH the time and effort -- in other words, the amount we have to pay
the programmer(s) to write the feature would either (a) increase the cost of
the package beyond what people are willing to pay or (b) cause us to lose
money. Losing money is something you can do once in a while, or on a small
portion of your sales, but no company can afford to consistently lose money.
This is one of the primary reasons we're looking at another platform. A real
operating system (no slams from OS/2 users, please :) provides these kind of
services, which are part of the operating system. They make it so an
enhancement to the operating system or the hardware, rather than being
something else the programmer has to write support for, is instead something
that enhances all programs... without any effort on their part. Essentially,
we're letting Microsoft write all the funky network drivers, while we
concentrate on writing a BBS server. Under DOS, everything becomes OUR
problem.
This is the long version of why we're trying to go to another platform. My
answer is that if the DOS platform continues to sell in sufficient numbers to
justify further development, we'll continue to develop for it. This is the
way any business has to operate. If you make plastic widgets, and the world
wants metal ones, you just can't continue to make the plastic ones.
As for your other issue, we plan to have the 2-line version of RemoteAccess
32 cost less than the current professional version of RemoteAccess Pro 2-line
upgrade from shareware, though slightly more than the shareware. (I know I'm
not supposed to mention pricing here). We want to generate interest in the
package, and we want to get people using it to make an attractive platform
for third-party development. So the cost of the package will actually be
less than what you'd pay for a Pro version of the software.
Joel Ricketts
Product Development Engineer
InterScape Development
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2376 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-12-95 15:06:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: Ryan Shaw
Subject: Beyond RemoteAccess v2.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RS> I don't think you should forget that there as many OS/2
RS> sysops as Windoze sysops out there.
I have definitely been impressed as to the number of Sysops who have sent me
Netmail regarding this issue. I'm becoming convinced that there *IS* a
market out there.
The problem still remains: time. I don't have time to learn OS/2 programming
and still get RA32 out on time. My question is this: in the interests of
getting RA32 for OS/2 out in a more timely fashion, is there anyone who would
be willing to do the conversion for a share of profits in the product? In
other words, we wouldn't be able to pay you except to give you a percentage
of sales. A team of people developing would be even better.
Requirements:
1. Must know C/C++. Pascal programmers need not apply (especially since
Pascal doesn't do RPC).
2. Must have an Internet address at which you can receive large files (i.e.
up to 1 meg).
3. You need a dedicated line for testing of the Internet functions.
4. You need a compiler. Watcom C/C++ is recommended, since that's what we're
using. It'll generate executables for DOS, Windows, Windows 95/NT, OS/2,
Novell Netware, etc. etc. etc. The 10.5 version of the compiler and IDE runs
under Windows, Windows 95, Windows NT, and OS/2.
5. You need access to developer information about OS/2.
6. You must be familiar with networking concepts and Internet specifically.
7. You must be familiar with telecommunications and BBS's (anyone reading
this echo probably is).
8. You must have too much free time. This will not be a small project.
9. It would be better if you were located in the US, to help cut down LD $$$.
Anyone interested, please send E-mail to jharvre@fileshop.com. Include code
examples so I can evaluate your programming expertise (the reason for this is
that, if we give someone responsibility for this project, we need to be sure
that they have the ability to complete it).
Joel Ricketts
Product Development Engineer
InterScape Development
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2518 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-13-95 18:15:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: Tom Almy
Subject: Beyond RemoteAccess v2.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TA> JR> operating system. RemoteAccess 32 will provide that new platform,
TA> JR> which we plan to have ready for ONE BBSCON next year.
TA> CW> At long last...something official! Although not from Andrew himself,
TA> CW> I will accept this message as proof RA is not dead, condsidering the
TA> CW> source.
TA> On the contrary, this message is proof that RA is dead after
TA> the 2.50 release.
TA> There will be a new product suitable for Windows 95/NT
TA> users, but for those of
TA> us not willing or able to go to that OS it's the end of the
TA> line for
TA> RemoteAccess.
Again, RA 2.50 MAY be the last version. Then again, it may not be. It
depends on how good the upgrade response is to 2.50. In other words, will
there be enough interest to justify further development.
It is *POSSIBLE* that we may also consider "handing off" development of the
DOS version to some other party (i.e. probably someone currently heavily
involved with RA).
An OS/2 version of RA32 is also a possibility, based on some of the responses
I've seen here. However, this is something that will either have to be
farmed out to a third party or will have to wait until v1.00 for Win95/NT.
Joel Ricketts
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #2523 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-14-95 07:00:00
From: Joel Ricketts
To: Rick Wilson
Subject: Beyond RemoteAccess v2.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RW> WIth your saying "InterScape Development is already
RW> developing RemoteAccess 32", is this saying that ISD is
RW> purchasing RA from Andrew or is this going to be a "joint"
RW> venture?
RA32 is going to be a joint venture between Wantree and InterScape.
Joel
---
* Origin: ISD * N. Amer. RAPRO Sales/Support (913) 262-4638 / 262-7000
(1:280/316)
Message #2572 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-16-95 15:28:00
From: andrew milner
To: All
Subject: The rumour machine..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I apologise for my long absence from RA. Over the last few months my life has
become gradually more complicated (albeit in a positive direction), and I'm
finding it harder to get the free time I used to have.
However, my number one priority right now is to get 2.50 out as soon as
possible. I hope to be releasing a gamma in the coming weeks, prior to the
full release.
Unlike last time, there will be both shareware AND professional versions of
the gamma available (to registered users only).
After 2.50 is out, I will be concentrating on a 32 bit version of RA. The
exact form it will appear in (features etc) hasn't been fully decided yet,
but I thought it best to give everyone some idea of my long range plans.
later,
andrew.
---
* Origin: Wantree Development (3:690/418)
Message #2623 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-17-95 12:59:00
From: andrew milner
To: Joel Ricketts
Subject: Beyond RemoteAccess v2.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Again, RA 2.50 MAY be the last version. Then again, it may
> not be. It depends on how good the upgrade response is to
> 2.50. In other words, will there be enough interest to
> justify further development.
> It is *POSSIBLE* that we may also consider "handing off"
> development of the DOS version to some other party (i.e.
> probably someone currently heavily involved with RA).
Joel, last time I checked I was still the developer of RA. Please don't go
starting MORE rumours.
later,
andrew.
---
* Origin: Wantree Development (3:690/418)
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Previous Messages on the same subject
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Message #328 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-09-95 18:12:00
From: Richard Sharp
To: Bob Tabin
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BT->What? Is your CURRENT version of RA (2.02) not good enough?
BT->Do you want the authurs to hurry up and not beta test the
BT->new software and make it the best? And when they do hurry
BT->this big project up and there are bugs, you guys will put
BT->even MORE messages outs..
Although you rarely see me enter into this discussion, I must agree
with those who are getting anxious. Afterall the current version,
2.02, was released back in June of '94 .. that is getting pretty
close to 1-1/2 years between updates.
It's taking an exceptionally long time to "test" the new release
making me think that 1) the beta testers are not doing their job
and reporting problems on a regular basis, or 2) RAndrew has
maybe lost interest and is not writing code on a timely basis.
As for RAndrew not representing himself in this echo, I agree with the many
who believe that if he wants the registration money, he should at least be
responsive to those who are supporting him and his product.
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: Computer Connection/RA 2.02+/GEcho 1.11+/FD 2.12+ (1:157/574)
Message #336 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-10-95 08:36:00
From: Tom Wall
To: Bob Tabin
Subject: Re: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message originally to All, Bob Tabin said:
BT> What? Is your CURRENT version of RA (2.02) not good enough? Do
BT> you want the authurs to hurry up and not beta test the new
BT> software and make it the best? And when they do hurry this big
BT> project up and there are bugs, you guys will put even MORE
BT> messages outs.. "the BBS deleted my hd or it screws up transfers!!"
BT> Guys, listen... let the guys work on this prohect and make it the
BT> best ever! Dont rush them... take the time that you write your
BT> messages "I want RA 2.5!" and instead...work on your current and
BT> GREAT Ra BBS!!
That's not the point. This is my "First" message on this topic I can't
stay out any longer.
Most messages I've read pertain to possible release time, Not "Hurry Up".
Most messages ask legitimate questions, Like what features are being
worked on?
IMHO it's Bulls#it to be so secretive. And all the crap about I work for
this or that company and we never tell anyone anything is Bulls#it also,
Pick up any P.C. Mag and you'll read tons of articles about future
releases of software, "POSSIBLE" release dates. And "HOPEFULL" new
features.
I have yet to see a message on this thread that demands to know What
features will be in 2.50 or when it will be released.
A simple message from ra andrew letting the people that pays his rent
know he gives a $#it is not asking a lot!
But hey, I know that would take up a lot of his time so that he couldn't
work on the new upgrade, Give me a break.
I don't think any of the beta testers should be ragged about not saying
anything because thats what they have been told to do. But I think some
of them have been pretty arrogant about some of the responses on this
topic.
Compare this "Support" to a product like Silver Xpress and you can see
what I'm talking about. 1-800 voice support, Internet support, E-mail a
BBS to call 2 Fido Support echo's. And yes the Author and his wife
answer any and all questions. No big secrets about what they would like
to improve or a possible release date on new upgrades, AND were talking
about "Several Products" not just 1
I have "Never" in over 2 years seen a message "ANYWHERE" with Ra andrew's
name on it, So if thats your Idea of support fine with me.
I just think it's pretty sad when someone ask's a simple question and
all you get is "when it's ready"
Come to think of it, have you ever seen the authors of any of your add
on shareware products act like this when asked a simple question?
Like, IceEdit, Rasis, Silver xpress, or any others?
Well I'm done.. I think it's crap and I think your probably looking at
vapor ware anyhow with RA, at least from the attitude from the powers
that be It would sure seem that way.
Well, thats my $0.02 worth
Tom
... A child of 5 could understand this! Fetch me a child of 5.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.3 SW12215
* Origin: The Law & Order BBS Dickson TN 615-441-1346 -=>28.8k<=-
(1:116/209)
Message #364 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-14-95 10:09:00
From: Mike Ehlert
To: Richard Sharp
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RS > It's taking an exceptionally long time to "test" the new
RS > release making me think that 1) the beta testers are not doing
RS > their job and reporting problems on a regular basis, or 2)
RS > RAndrew has maybe lost interest and is not writing code on a
RS > timely basis.
I agree that it's taking way too long Richard.
All I will say on the subject (speaking as a RA beta tester myself) is:
The delay is _not_ due to any lack of participation of the beta team.
Regards, Mike
---
* Origin: *PCM* North American RemoteAccess Support 805-494-8427
(1:102/1001)
Message #448 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-13-95 02:24:00
From: Kenneth Mohr
To: Tom Wall
Subject: Re: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TW> Most messages ask legitimate questions, Like what features
TW> are being worked on?
Well I am not sure what the big secret is either. Here is a list of some of
the new features of RemoteAccess Professional v2.50, this is from a color
brochure that ISD handed me at a convention:
Integrated UUCP E-mail and Newsgroup Processor
Direct real-time Internet support with NetXpress Server
Supports SMTP,NNTP,WWW,FTP,Gopher, Finger, Telnet, and UUCP.
(seperate product)
Full-featured RIP and RIP v2.0 Support
Support for NetBIOS and IPX network protocols
Enhanced Questionnaire Language
No longer limited to just questionaires, EQL permits you to design
powerful, flexible subroutines for additional funtionality.
Powerful, full-featured integrated accounting system
Run multiple nodes under Microsoft's Windows '95
Maybe I am off-base here and this is not what y'all want to know, but it's
not secret and I have no problems posting this.
---
* Origin: The File Shop BBS - 40 Gigs Online - (913) 262-7000 (1:280/316)
Message #392 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-13-95 14:47:00
From: Mike Ehlert
To: Tom Wall
Subject: Re: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TW > Well, thats my $0.02 worth
Worth more then that, and it's been forwarded to andrew.
Regards, Mike
---
* Origin: *PCM* North American RemoteAccess Support 805-494-8427
(1:102/1001)
Message #478 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-13-95 23:43:00
From: Mike Ehlert
To: Kenneth Mohr
Subject: Re: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KM > Professional v2.50, this is from a color brochure that ISD
KM > handed me at a convention:
KM > Integrated UUCP E-mail and Newsgroup Processor
KM > Direct real-time Internet support with NetXpress Server
KM > Supports SMTP,NNTP,WWW,FTP,Gopher, Finger, Telnet, and UUCP.
KM > Full-featured RIP and RIP v2.0 Support
KM > Support for NetBIOS and IPX network protocols
KM > Enhanced Questionnaire Language
KM > No longer limited to just questionaires, EQL
KM > permits you to design powerful, flexible subroutines for
KM > additional funtionality.
KM > Powerful, full-featured integrated accounting system
KM > Run multiple nodes under Microsoft's Windows '95
KM > Maybe I am off-base here and this is not what y'all want to
KM > know, but it's not secret and I have no problems posting
KM > this.
Strange that ISD announces features that the beta sites never heard of.
Is it true that andrew was not present at OneBBSCon?
As for running multiple nodes under Win95, any version of RA allows that.
I'd like to see RA run as a native win95 application, but thats probally
asking too much. :-)
Regards, Mike
---
* Origin: *PCM* North American RemoteAccess Support 805-494-8427
(1:102/1001)
Message #653 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 10-16-95 18:13:00
From: Danny Daniel
To: Mike Ehlert
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ehlert wrote in a message to Kenneth Mohr:
ME> @PID: RA 2.5.b3 2340
ME> @MSGID: 1:102/1001 561d9716
Just curious Mike. I noticed by your pid that you are running beta 3.
Before your hard drive crashed recently you were running b4. Was b4 somehow
responsible for the hd crash and that is why you went back to b3 ?
ME> Strange that ISD announces features that the beta sites
ME> never heard of. Is it true that andrew was not present at
ME> OneBBSCon?
ME> As for running multiple nodes under Win95, any version of RA
ME> allows that. I'd like to see RA run as a native win95
ME> application, but thats probally asking too much. :-)
I do not wish to stir up a storm but I too would also like to see RA go
native Win95. There is a new, large group of users out there who are scared
to death of a c: prompt, if they can not click on it they don't use it.
I much prefer DOS based bbs software for speed and reliability. However my
crystal ball says if RA does not offer a GUI to compete with the other major
players it will decline in popularity as more sysops invest in the necessary
equipment necessary to run the more demanding OS's . RA has always been
innovative and I certainly would like for RA to at least be in the middle of
the pack if not at the lead and offer us a choice of dos or Win95 based
software so that our RA bbs's can better compete for users. OS/2 is nice
but I understand IBM may be going to slowly allow it to die.
My registration for RA was purchased several years ago and I have been very
satisfied. It would be fantastic if Andrew would let his faithful flock know
where RA is headed for the future so we can determine whether to wait or jump
ship.
Regards,
Danny
---
* Origin: Pride of the Plains BBS Floydada,TX 806.983.6133 (1:19/166)
Message #672 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 10-17-95 01:43:00
From: Jon Vandenberg
To: Mike Ehlert
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-=| On 14 Oct 95 10:09, Mike Ehlert said: |=-
ME> I agree that it's taking way too long Richard.
I think it's safe to assume that RA isn't andrews main source of income.
--- GEcho/32 1.20/Pro
* Origin: WareHouse BBS - Wyoming MI - (616)538-5410 (1:228/45)
Message #693 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-19-95 21:03:00
From: Mike Ehlert
To: Jon Vandenberg
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JV > I think it's safe to assume that RA isn't andrews main
JV > source of income.
I heard he's an internet provider, which unfortunatly takes up
most of his time these days...
Regards, Mike
---
* Origin: *PCM* North American RemoteAccess Support 805-494-8427
(1:102/1001)
Message #722 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 10-16-95 15:02:00
From: Richard Sharp
To: Mike Ehlert
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME->I agree that it's taking way too long Richard.
ME->All I will say on the subject (speaking as a RA beta tester myself) is:
ME->The delay is _not_ due to any lack of participation of the beta team.
hehe ... I kinda assumed that much ...
Net mail coming your way.
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: Computer Connection/RA 2.02+/GEcho 1.11+/FD 2.12+ (1:157/574)
Message #734 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-17-95 21:41:16
From: Zsolt Hengsperger
To: Danny Daniel
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In a message originally to Mike Ehlert, Danny Daniel said:
>My registration for RA was purchased several years ago and I
>have been very satisfied. It would be fantastic if Andrew
>would let his faithful flock know where RA is headed for the
>future so we can determine whether to wait or jump ship.
Yes, it seems you, a beta team member of RA (?) seem to share the same
opinions on this release of features as a LOT of other readers of the RA
newsgroups. It's not just me people!
Sincerely,
Zsolt Hengsperger
SysOp, Something For Everyone BBS
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Something For Everyone BBS Port Alberni,BC,Canada (1:3410/210)
Message #762 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-17-95 14:59:00
From: Richard Sharp
To: Danny Daniel
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD->My registration for RA was purchased several years ago and I
DD->have been very satisfied. It would be fantastic if Andrew
DD->would let his faithful flock know where RA is headed for the
DD->future so we can determine whether to wait or jump ship.
Many have already jumped ship because of the long awaited 2.50
which seems to be in limbo. I am (and have been for a couple
years) a staunch supporter of RA, but due to the unrealistic
time element in getting 2.50 released, even I am beginning to
take a look to see what the competition has to offer. If we
don't see something positive soon, I fear that the demise of
RA may not be long in coming.
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: Computer Connection/RA 2.02+/GEcho 1.11+/FD 2.12+ (1:157/574)
Message #772 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-18-95 21:06:50
From: Danny Daniel
To: Zsolt Hengsperger
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zsolt Hengsperger wrote in a message to Danny Daniel:
> * In a message originally to Mike Ehlert, Danny Daniel said:
>My registration for RA was purchased several years ago and I
>have been very satisfied. It would be fantastic if Andrew
>would let his faithful flock know where RA is headed for the
>future so we can determine whether to wait or jump ship.
ZH> Yes, it seems you, a beta team member of RA (?) seem to
ZH> share the same opinions on this release of features as a LOT
ZH> of other readers of the RA newsgroups. It's not just me
ZH> people!
Yes I would like to know what is going to happen to RA.
And,,, NO I am not a member of the BETA team durnnit.
Regards,
Danny
---
* Origin: Pride of the Plains BBS Floydada,TX 806.983.6133 (1:19/166)
Message #822 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 10-18-95 07:41:00
From: Tom Wall
To: Mike Ehlert
Subject: Re: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom is replying to Mike who replied to Tom
TW >> Well, thats my $0.02 worth
ME> Worth more then that, and it's been forwarded to andrew.
Thank you, One simple message from Andrew could help this Echo more than
he know's
InterNet: twall@sheriff.win.net
---
Message #1103 - RemoteAccess BBS Support (Received)
Date: 10-23-95 08:21:00
From: Christopher A. Reicks
To: Mike Ehlert
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mike!
Friday October 13 1995 23:43, Mike Ehlert wrote to Kenneth Mohr:
ME> Strange that ISD announces features that the beta sites never heard of.
ME> Is it true that andrew was not present at OneBBSCon?
This is entirely correct. I've been told that only ISD was present at
ONEBBSCON, no Andrew Milner!
ME> As for running multiple nodes under Win95, any version of RA allows
ME> that. I'd like to see RA run as a native win95 application, but thats
ME> probally asking too much. :-)
:-))
Christopher
InterNet: quark@jagunet.com
... "The love of liberty is the love of others." -- Hazlitt
--- GEcho/32 1.20/beta+
* Origin: GEcho/ALLFIX/NU Beta, Support & Distribution Site (1:261/3010)
Message #1408 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-28-95 21:59:14
From: Kelly Mastrorilli
To: Rob Szarka
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Szarka wrote in a message to Tom Wall:
-=> Tom Wall spake unto Bob Tabin, saying <=-
TW> Well I'm done.. I think it's crap and I think your probably looking at
TW> vapor ware anyhow with RA, at least from the attitude from the powers
TW> that be It would sure seem that way.
RS> RAndrew can't win, can he? He doesn't say anything about
RS> 2.50 and he still gets accused of promoting "vaporware"?
He can "obviously" type can't he? Maybe if he said something, people
would believe that its still coming out! It takes all of 5 minutes to type a
message.. I've had it with RA.. Hes tight lipped about the new version..
There are rumours flying like crazy! Yet he still can't find the time to type
out a message that lets us know what the future of RA is. Thats bad business!
He has a wannabe registration site in Canada but he doesn't do anything about
it.
Netmail was sent to him on my behalf regarding my Ra Registration..I still
haven't heard anything from him! I've been ripped off..but they will
be hearing something about it next week. :) Its amazing how the law protects
people and their money!
Take Care!
Kelly
kellym@adan.kingston.net
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Lexical Analyser - Kingston,Ont (613)541-0857 (1:249/158)
Message #1440 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-28-95 17:05:32
From: Mike McGrane
To: David Desrosiers
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday October 13 1995 16:29, David Desrosiers wrote to Richard Sharp:
rs>> As for RAndrew not representing himself in this echo, I
rs>> agree with the many who believe that if he wants the
rs>> registration money, he should at least be responsive to
rs>> those who are supporting him and his product.
DD> The more time he spends answering mail, the less he can
DD> spend on code.
Dave I have to say this. your full of dudu... Here is a copy of what Mike
Ehlerts (Pacific Coast Micro BBS) logon bulletin is now saying. He is (was) a
vary respected beta tester and one hell of a guy.
As you know the board was dead for a while after we lost
our hard drive last month. We also had some phone line
troubles, and for some reason Windows95 was running the
BBS alot slower then Desqview was...
Finally things are looking positive for a change. After
deleting and reinstalling Windows it's now running way
faster! There are now 2 functional phone lines (we had
to dump the other 2 due to major LD bills).
We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
intrest in its development.
We are changing the theme of this board, and it will be
more simular to the PCM that some of you remember back
from many years ago.... PRIVATE!
Regards, Mike
-Mike
mikemcg@primenet.com
---
* Origin: The Exchange BBS (612)537-0449 (1:282/1024)
Message #1591 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 10-31-95 11:07:00
From: Craig Bratcher
To: Mike McGrane
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While trash-talking with David Desrosiers, Mike McGrane muttered this
garbage:
MM> We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
MM> the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
MM> intrest in its development.
This was posted on a board RUN by a RA BETA TESTER ?!?!??!?!!?
Say it ain't so.
Craig
---
* Origin: -=Maelstrom=- Phile Phreak Central (904)458-6838 (1:3612/195)
Message #1675 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-01-95 16:20:00
From: Rand Nowell
To: Craig Bratcher
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight from the hoss's mouth, Craig Bratcher wrote to Mike McGrane:
CB> While trash-talking with David Desrosiers, Mike McGrane
CB> muttered this garbage:
MM> We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
MM> the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
MM> intrest in its development.
CB> This was posted on a board RUN by a RA BETA TESTER
CB> ?!?!??!?!!? Say it ain't so.
It appears that some are jumping ship, while yet others are
climbing to the top of the mast, to see if the leak stops, and
the ship floats again.
Happy trails to you... Rand-
---
* Origin: Cowboy Software - Node1 (510)226-7731 (1:215/710)
Message #1715 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-01-95 17:44:58
From: John Kuhns
To: Craig Bratcher
Subject: Re: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-=> Quoting Craig Bratcher to Mike McGrane <=-
CB> While trash-talking with David Desrosiers, Mike McGrane muttered this
CB> garbage:
MM> We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
MM> the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
MM> intrest in its development.
CB> This was posted on a board RUN by a RA BETA TESTER ?!?!??!?!!?
CB> Say it ain't so.
It's true, dude! I know which board you are talking about, and the last time
I was on, the switch was in progress.....*sigh*
John
... Pardon me, but would you have any Blue Poupon?
--- FMailX 1.02+
* Origin: The GhostRider BBS Glendale, Az. (602) 439-2226 (1:114/314)
Message #1717 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-02-95 01:19:24
From: Mike McGrane
To: Craig Bratcher
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday October 31 1995 11:07, Craig Bratcher wrote to Mike McGrane:
MM>> We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
MM>> the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
MM>> intrest in its development.
CB> This was posted on a board RUN by a RA BETA TESTER ?!?!??!?!!?
CB> Say it ain't so.
Sure is. It is not any BS either.
Mike
mikemcg@primenet.com
... First computer owners. Adam and Eve. Eve had an Apple - Adam had a Wang.
---
* Origin: The Exchange BBS (612)537-0449 (1:282/1024)
Message #1942 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-04-95 02:08:00
From: C. Zychski
To: Craig Bratcher
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB>MM> We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
CB>MM> the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
CB>MM> intrest in its development.
CB>This was posted on a board RUN by a RA BETA TESTER ?!?!??!?!!?
CB>Say it ain't so.
Well Craig,
On any sinking ship, the rats desert first...
-cc
* SLMR 2.1a * Beta testing is only as good as the beta testor.
--- RemoteAccess 2.02+ 24 Hours
* Origin: Chain-Link-BBS Utica, Mi. USA 810-997-1438 (1:2202/21)
Message #2028 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-07-95 16:07:00
From: Charlie Wardick
To: C. Zychski
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CZ> Well Craig, On any sinking ship, the rats desert first... -cc
Yeh right, and the captain goes last! It would appear that Andrew has
abondoned ship MONTHS ago. It amazes me the in light of the hundreds of
messages a week regarding the death of RA and his alledged moderatorship of
this echo, that he would come forward and actually just inform us of
something. Beta3 was stagnant for months and I believe it has been even
longer with this Beta4.
--- RemoteAccess 2.02+
* Origin: Never Surrender! Toledo Ohio 28.8 V.34 (419)475-8705 (1:234/68)
Message #2050 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-06-95 15:23:00
From: Richard Sharp
To: C. Zychski
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CZ->CB>MM>> We are planning to try other BBS software shortly, as
CZ->CB>MM>> the author of RemoteAccess appears to have lost all
CZ->CB>NN>> intrest in its development.
CZ->CB>This was posted on a board RUN by a RA BETA TESTER ?!?!??!?!!?
CZ->CB>Say it ain't so.
It is so ....
CZ->Well Craig,
CZ->On any sinking ship,
This no doubt applies to RemoteAccess?
CZ->the rats desert first...
I wouldn't consider this beta tester a rat... he's been one of the best,
provided quick responses to questions asked in this echo, and has good
reason for his decision.
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: Computer Connection/RA 2.02+/GEcho 1.11+/FD 2.12+ (1:157/574)
Message #2161 - RemoteAccess BBS Support
Date: 11-09-95 18:28:58
From: Louie Gonsalves
To: C. Zychski
Subject: Ra 2.50.. whats the hurry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a coffee overdose, C. said this to Craig about: Ra 2.50.. Whats The
Hurr...
CZ> On any sinking ship, the rats desert first...
And the captain SHOULD be the last to abandon ship. So... where is the
captain?
... Cogito, ergo Hormel -- I think, therefore I Spam
--- FastEcho 1.45a+
* Origin: The Concession Stand, 407-569-6568, RA Beta, 33.6 Dual
(1:374/6568)
[end of file]
Return to RemoteAccess Support