As we continue to work through the mountains of code that makes up Worldgroup, it has become apparent that WG3.3 NT is not built on the last version of code developed by Galacticomm themselves.
It appears that those (no names but most people know the story) who took (stole?) the code when Galacticomm was folding "released" WG3.3 with an old branch of the source code. We are reviewing the differences and in some cases have noticed that WG3.3 is many versions behind WG3.2 in terms of development (bug fixes, etc).
What does that really mean? It means that The Major BBS v10 will be based off the last true official source code (WG3.2) with any additions/fixes re-implemented. The reason I point it out is that we want to be honest and transparent with the community and keep you updated as we continue with the project. Don't worry, compatibility is one of our highest priorities and we will ensure that what runs on WG3.2/WG3.3 will run on MBBS v10.
WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
-- Duckula
// Site admin
// Galacticomm IP owner
// Site admin
// Galacticomm IP owner
Re: WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
This makes a lot of sense. One of the oddities we noticed about 3.3 was that it had a habit of "freezing" the console... I bet there's some minor code issues like that due to this! Good find!
Founder, The Major BBS Restoration Project
Owner, Elwynor Technologies ISV
Former Owner, Galacticomm IP (2005-2020)
Contributor, Galacticomm IP baseline
Owner, Elwynor Technologies ISV
Former Owner, Galacticomm IP (2005-2020)
Contributor, Galacticomm IP baseline
-
daniel_spain
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:39 am
Re: WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
this.... so on the old themajorbbs.com forums there is a post of me talking to another sysop about this same thing.
so a lot of my ico modules that relied on other libs won't init on 3.3 but if I compiled them in a 3.2 environment it did though sometimes it wouldn't work backwards. I switched to 3.12 and eliminated this problem altogether.
In regards to the mountains of code. its not that mountainous when you eliminate all the bulk. years ago a sysop by the name of Don Drake wanted to tear down wgnt and trash the bloat just have a major bbs core with tcp/ip we were gonna call it major bbs 7.00 and did the whole look and scan through 3.2, 3.3, and eventually 3.1x when I happened across the 3.0 source code and it is so much lighter, has way less bloat, and though it is not foldered like 3.2x is the overall code is the same. And anyone who knows will tell ya its not even built from wg 2.0 its a port of the unix version. I been playing with the 3.0 code lately on my own dev system just removing g stuff until I get to a baseline server.
quite frankly im not a fan of any of the post Stryker version to be quite honest. I know technically that eliminates the windows product but I feel it went through so many hands since then its really a watered down product now.
so a lot of my ico modules that relied on other libs won't init on 3.3 but if I compiled them in a 3.2 environment it did though sometimes it wouldn't work backwards. I switched to 3.12 and eliminated this problem altogether.
In regards to the mountains of code. its not that mountainous when you eliminate all the bulk. years ago a sysop by the name of Don Drake wanted to tear down wgnt and trash the bloat just have a major bbs core with tcp/ip we were gonna call it major bbs 7.00 and did the whole look and scan through 3.2, 3.3, and eventually 3.1x when I happened across the 3.0 source code and it is so much lighter, has way less bloat, and though it is not foldered like 3.2x is the overall code is the same. And anyone who knows will tell ya its not even built from wg 2.0 its a port of the unix version. I been playing with the 3.0 code lately on my own dev system just removing g stuff until I get to a baseline server.
quite frankly im not a fan of any of the post Stryker version to be quite honest. I know technically that eliminates the windows product but I feel it went through so many hands since then its really a watered down product now.
Re: WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
Technically, the UNIX version, which was a port of Major BBS v6.25 (it's ultra rare, but there is indeed a v6.25 UNIX version) and then a dual-developed product for WG 1.0x, was under Stryker. It was spearheaded by Mahesh Neelakanta whilst at university. When things started getting tight, it wasn't maintained -- though the WG 2 code mostly would compile into UNIX. WG 3 you are correct leveraged the UNIX conversions of x86 ASM to C. Most of the BBS core is the same and didn't need a lot of conversion. What needed conversion was anything using dos.h / direct.h and similar, or x86 ASM. There are still some #ifdefined UNIX today!
WG 3.0 was a mess. 3.1 and 3.2 were more stable and 3.2 was the last release officially released as Galacticomm, although you're right that they were under the Berg/Tessier leadership. Before Stryker passed, and even after for a good while while his estate was settled, Scott Brinker was running the company and his leadership was reliable.
It makes sense to start with 3.2 or 3.12 rather than 3.0 though - 3.0 was a mess, and isn't compatible with some of the 3.x modules, etc. 3.12 fixed a lot of that. 3.2 seems stable - not sure what is not working well there?
WG 3.0 was a mess. 3.1 and 3.2 were more stable and 3.2 was the last release officially released as Galacticomm, although you're right that they were under the Berg/Tessier leadership. Before Stryker passed, and even after for a good while while his estate was settled, Scott Brinker was running the company and his leadership was reliable.
It makes sense to start with 3.2 or 3.12 rather than 3.0 though - 3.0 was a mess, and isn't compatible with some of the 3.x modules, etc. 3.12 fixed a lot of that. 3.2 seems stable - not sure what is not working well there?
Founder, The Major BBS Restoration Project
Owner, Elwynor Technologies ISV
Former Owner, Galacticomm IP (2005-2020)
Contributor, Galacticomm IP baseline
Owner, Elwynor Technologies ISV
Former Owner, Galacticomm IP (2005-2020)
Contributor, Galacticomm IP baseline
-
daniel_spain
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:39 am
Re: WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
Questman wrote:
> Technically, the UNIX version, which was a port of Major BBS v6.25 (it's
> ultra rare, but there is indeed a v6.25 UNIX version) and then a
> dual-developed product for WG 1.0x, was under Stryker. It was spearheaded
> by Mahesh Neelakanta whilst at university. When things started getting
> tight, it wasn't maintained -- though the WG 2 code mostly would compile
> into UNIX. WG 3 you are correct leveraged the UNIX conversions of x86 ASM
> to C. Most of the BBS core is the same and didn't need a lot of
> conversion. What needed conversion was anything using dos.h / direct.h and
> similar, or x86 ASM. There are still some #ifdefined UNIX today!
>
> WG 3.0 was a mess. 3.1 and 3.2 were more stable and 3.2 was the last
> release officially released as Galacticomm, although you're right that they
> were under the Berg/Tessier leadership. Before Stryker passed, and even
> after for a good while while his estate was settled, Scott Brinker was
> running the company and his leadership was reliable.
>
> It makes sense to start with 3.2 or 3.12 rather than 3.0 though - 3.0 was a
> mess, and isn't compatible with some of the 3.x modules, etc. 3.12 fixed a
> lot of that. 3.2 seems stable - not sure what is not working well there?
tbqh i couldnt tell ya i have never used a 3.2 code kit... and to think of it not sure why.
i think the entire reason i went with 3.12 when i did was because it was the first archive
i pulled up and quite frankly it worked. i do know some of my ico modules i compiled in
the 3.3 kit people had trouble getting to init under 3.2 (most recently Ragtop and my SMTP mod)
but when i compiled it under 3.12 boom it initialized. so something is wierd with 3.3
on this topic is there any reason we are still supporting 6.25 as a whole? i truly feel we should
move wg2 to the last legacy DOS product since 3.2 is the last legacy windows product.
just my 2 cents.
> Technically, the UNIX version, which was a port of Major BBS v6.25 (it's
> ultra rare, but there is indeed a v6.25 UNIX version) and then a
> dual-developed product for WG 1.0x, was under Stryker. It was spearheaded
> by Mahesh Neelakanta whilst at university. When things started getting
> tight, it wasn't maintained -- though the WG 2 code mostly would compile
> into UNIX. WG 3 you are correct leveraged the UNIX conversions of x86 ASM
> to C. Most of the BBS core is the same and didn't need a lot of
> conversion. What needed conversion was anything using dos.h / direct.h and
> similar, or x86 ASM. There are still some #ifdefined UNIX today!
>
> WG 3.0 was a mess. 3.1 and 3.2 were more stable and 3.2 was the last
> release officially released as Galacticomm, although you're right that they
> were under the Berg/Tessier leadership. Before Stryker passed, and even
> after for a good while while his estate was settled, Scott Brinker was
> running the company and his leadership was reliable.
>
> It makes sense to start with 3.2 or 3.12 rather than 3.0 though - 3.0 was a
> mess, and isn't compatible with some of the 3.x modules, etc. 3.12 fixed a
> lot of that. 3.2 seems stable - not sure what is not working well there?
tbqh i couldnt tell ya i have never used a 3.2 code kit... and to think of it not sure why.
i think the entire reason i went with 3.12 when i did was because it was the first archive
i pulled up and quite frankly it worked. i do know some of my ico modules i compiled in
the 3.3 kit people had trouble getting to init under 3.2 (most recently Ragtop and my SMTP mod)
but when i compiled it under 3.12 boom it initialized. so something is wierd with 3.3
on this topic is there any reason we are still supporting 6.25 as a whole? i truly feel we should
move wg2 to the last legacy DOS product since 3.2 is the last legacy windows product.
just my 2 cents.
Re: WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
WG 2 is a lot more stable for sure. Testing it now. All my Modules Initialize fine.
Re: WG3.2 vs WG3.3 - An interesting find
daniel_spain wrote:
> on this topic is there any reason we are still supporting 6.25 as a whole? i truly
> feel we should move wg2 to the last legacy DOS product since 3.2 is the last legacy windows product.
> just my 2 cents.
With the release of the 6.25 Free Edition and the upcoming WG2 Free Edition, this will effectively become the situation, likely skipping WG1 completely. However this does not mean they will become "abandonware" as many people would like to claim. The files, manuals and support via forums will continue.
> on this topic is there any reason we are still supporting 6.25 as a whole? i truly
> feel we should move wg2 to the last legacy DOS product since 3.2 is the last legacy windows product.
> just my 2 cents.
With the release of the 6.25 Free Edition and the upcoming WG2 Free Edition, this will effectively become the situation, likely skipping WG1 completely. However this does not mean they will become "abandonware" as many people would like to claim. The files, manuals and support via forums will continue.
-- Duckula
// Site admin
// Galacticomm IP owner
// Site admin
// Galacticomm IP owner