The Major BBS Forums

Hi everyone,
What is the reason(s) why the WG code cannot be open source yet (at 2025)?
Regards!

I.am.intetesying in knowing what benefits you believe this would bring?

From my experience with both this and other projects, the theory that open sourcing it will suddenly bring developers from everywhere to start contributing has not actually happened.

If a developer wants to contribute to the project, they can contact the team and we would love to work with them.

There is a V10 SDK that I put together (excluding the GSBL) that will ultimately be put on GitHub and become the V10 repository. Due to personal reasons I have had to step back from development for an extended period but hopefully that changes soon.

The GSBL is not included until an alternative to the current BBS reg # system can be re-worked. There are many components that rely on the reg # to uniquely identify a system (such as worldlink / majorlink) and this needs to be addressed first.

More importantly there is the issue of respecting the IP of module developers including those that no longer maintain that module. I have no interest in getting into an IP / legal / abandonware discussion. This is and always will be my stance. Yours may differ and while I may not agree with you I respect your right to your opinion as you should respect mine.

if i may...

Tim and company wrote this from the ground up so that you could practically do anything you wanted utilizing addons.
now from the outside looking in you may not see it this way but when you dig into the inner meat of the engine there
is so much you can do... too bad a lot of the manuals you could get from gcomm are no longer available.
anyone ever read the Btrieve dev guide? powerful. so much you can do using hundreds of calls not even
used by anyone. so, this being open sourced really serves no true benefit. we would have what, 3-4 forks in the coming
years all with their own community but doing what? the only benefit i see would be portability. maybe someone ports this to
linux, .net, java, who knows. I never began using the v10 only because after years i have always just wrote in my own
modifications and compiled them directly which the sdk will allow once he releases it.
the sms and 2fa stuff people always ask me for is built right into majorbbs.c so a full open source for this really isnt needed.
most other projects do n ot have an addon system like wg/mbbs does.
as for the GSBL, i have the original gsbl ported to win32 from the unix version and to be quite honest not sure newer developers
would know where to begin with that thing... especially the asm portions.
and this is just my two-cents, not a knock on anyone, just my thoughts on the subject.

Hello Dukula/Daniel, how are you?!

An example can be seen in the SBBS development model, there are many collaborators... development is very active.
The software has grown immensely in functionality, the code compiles on many platforms and architectures. And it has great documentation.
I don't understand how this can't be seen as a benefit.
Compare it to Mystic, which is also closed, and think about the differences. There have been no improvements or new features for a long time.

I don't want to be misunderstood, I think that in WG it is very difficult to get into development, because there is simply no way to see what is being done.

In other cases, just by looking at the activity on git, one already knows how things are going.

If anyone can simply clone a repo, add a few lines and compile, it would be fantastic.
For example, it would be very educational to have a module model as an example of "hello word" but with several features to serve as a template.
I understand very well the idea of ​​the original developers who promoted doing everything with external modules.

But nowadays, even building a module implies having a big heavy stone installed for something really small.

Here I notice a bottleneck (sorry for my language, bottleneck is a way in my country to say that something is stuck at a point)
I hope you can publish an SDK, maybe that can improve the way of building modules.

Regarding the IP, you can evaluate the alternative of leaving parts of code closed, like the Linux kernel is to firmwares.
They will simply be compiled dlls and that's it (blobs)
But the rest of the code of the modules can be useful to understand how the core works.

I don't know... this is not to rant or anything like that... it's simply a look from outside the project.
I want to clarify that for me it is super interesting to see my beloved WG alive. But sometimes I regret that it is difficult to move forward.

Saludos!

A V10 module SDK is almost complete and will be on GitHub when done. I will make an announcement when it is ready.

It is a Visual Studio solution with a basic example V10 module.

Ragnarok wrote:
> Hello Dukula/Daniel, how are you?!
>
> An example can be seen in the SBBS development model, there are many
> collaborators... development is very active.
> The software has grown immensely in functionality, the code compiles on
> many platforms and architectures. And it has great documentation.
> I don't understand how this can't be seen as a benefit.
> Compare it to Mystic, which is also closed, and think about the
> differences. There have been no improvements or new features for a long
> time.
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood, I think that in WG it is very difficult
> to get into development, because there is simply no way to see what is
> being done.
>
> In other cases, just by looking at the activity on git, one already knows
> how things are going.
>
> If anyone can simply clone a repo, add a few lines and compile, it would be
> fantastic.
> For example, it would be very educational to have a module model as an
> example of "hello word" but with several features to serve as a
> template.
> I understand very well the idea of ​​the original developers who promoted
> doing everything with external modules.
>
> But nowadays, even building a module implies having a big heavy stone
> installed for something really small.
>
> Here I notice a bottleneck (sorry for my language, bottleneck is a way in
> my country to say that something is stuck at a point)
> I hope you can publish an SDK, maybe that can improve the way of building
> modules.
>
> Regarding the IP, you can evaluate the alternative of leaving parts of code
> closed, like the Linux kernel is to firmwares.
> They will simply be compiled dlls and that's it (blobs)
> But the rest of the code of the modules can be useful to understand how the
> core works.
>
> I don't know... this is not to rant or anything like that... it's simply a
> look from outside the project.
> I want to clarify that for me it is super interesting to see my beloved WG
> alive. But sometimes I regret that it is difficult to move forward.
>
> Saludos!

oh i get it man, i have been an active sbbs developer since 1995, i purchased (i believe 2.20 and Rob sent me 2.30b and a pretty bound book) i used it mainly as a majorbbs door server but tinkered with baja now JavaScript, i even have a sbbs door server modded so cleanly the only way to tell you are not still on the WorldGroup system is the inabvility to communicate (though i am making breakthroughs on this).

for modules, biggest problem we hit nowadays is the resources we had in the 90s not to mention the costs of this stuff back then... i am going to give you a real number...

1994...

$249.00 for a 2 user system
$249.00 for every 6 you want to add up to 256

that's just the software. then the galactiboxes, modems, addons, phone lines. i mean it got pricey. and yes, you could return the investment back then.
i do not own any of the ip but i can tell you the main reason mbbs/wg never hit the open market was the money spent. i have a bbs i bought from a guy
4 years ago maybe, but you had to buy it all, the mbbs 6.25 system, the hardware, everything, of course he parted with it at a fraction of the cost, but he said he
spent easily 24k just to start up in 1992 with a 256-line system ran out of a tv station in richmond va. add inflation to that it gets high.
i think rick was dropping ducets at a face pace too, so right now my thoughts are a money perspective.
synchronet as powerful as it is was like 99 for 2 lines and i think he offered discounts the higher you went, but of course using qemm, desqview, os/2 and other
multitaskers your large line system took up some space and Tim put it all in one package.
and sad thing is most the stuff locked in the gsbl for performance a good ai program can replicate for you in seconds as most is in common libraries now but go back in time and it was well ahead of the curve. i mean sometimes i look through the gsbl source and compare to newer methods and he was able to do it in way fewer lines of code.

Duckula wrote:
> A V10 module SDK is almost complete and will be on GitHub when done. I will
> make an announcement when it is ready.
>
> It is a Visual Studio solution with a basic example V10 module.

this is a great news!
thanks!

daniel_spain wrote:

> oh i get it man, i have been an active sbbs developer since 1995, i purchased (i
> believe 2.20 and Rob sent me 2.30b and a pretty bound book) i used it mainly as a
> majorbbs door server but tinkered with baja now JavaScript, i even have a sbbs door
> server modded so cleanly the only way to tell you are not still on the WorldGroup
> system is the inabvility to communicate (though i am making breakthroughs on this).
>
> for modules, biggest problem we hit nowadays is the resources we had in the 90s not
> to mention the costs of this stuff back then... i am going to give you a real
> number...
>
> 1994...
>
> $249.00 for a 2 user system
> $249.00 for every 6 you want to add up to 256
>
> that's just the software. then the galactiboxes, modems, addons, phone lines. i mean
> it got pricey. and yes, you could return the investment back then.
> i do not own any of the ip but i can tell you the main reason mbbs/wg never hit the
> open market was the money spent. i have a bbs i bought from a guy
> 4 years ago maybe, but you had to buy it all, the mbbs 6.25 system, the hardware,
> everything, of course he parted with it at a fraction of the cost, but he said he
> spent easily 24k just to start up in 1992 with a 256-line system ran out of a tv
> station in richmond va. add inflation to that it gets high.
> i think rick was dropping ducets at a face pace too, so right now my thoughts are a
> money perspective.
> synchronet as powerful as it is was like 99 for 2 lines and i think he offered
> discounts the higher you went, but of course using qemm, desqview, os/2 and other
> multitaskers your large line system took up some space and Tim put it all in one
> package.
> and sad thing is most the stuff locked in the gsbl for performance a good ai program
> can replicate for you in seconds as most is in common libraries now but go back in
> time and it was well ahead of the curve. i mean sometimes i look through the gsbl
> source and compare to newer methods and he was able to do it in way fewer lines of
> code.

It's clear, I understand the idea.
I know that story, as an anecdote I can tell you that I had the crazy idea of ​​buying WG in Argentina in the 90's from a seller who sold modems. I remember paying more than 200 dollars (a foreign currency for us) for a WG 3.0 for DOS.
I only had a bbs with a telephone line, purely as a hobby and with no intention of recovering the money.
But that was another time and another context.

I'm thinking about WG in 2025.
For example, how could the GSBL be replaced if nobody has access to it and doesn't know about it?

From the first day I saw WG, I knew it was the most advanced bbs of the time. But what happened was that it remained stagnant over the years due to maintaining this closed development model.
My question is: in 2025 is it still convenient to keep it like this? What are the benefits?

Saludos!

[quote=Ragnarok post_id=2750 time=1737823993 user_id=194]

From the first day I saw WG, I knew it was the most advanced bbs of the time. But what happened was that it remained stagnant over the years due to maintaining this closed development model.
My question is: in 2025 is it still convenient to keep it like this? What are the benefits?

[/quote]

Firstly, WG was never really a closed development model. Source code kits were sold by Galacticomm as far back as MBBS V6. It may have been expensive but it was available.

Next, I believe Rick has always provided the wg3.2 / wg3.3 SDK to people who have requested it.

Yes, there is no equivalent for V10 but that is more of a developer resource constraint than anything else.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we are finalising a module SDK that will have all the V10 LIB and Header files needed to create a V10 module along with an example.

Now to the GSBL. This seems to be the sticking point with people who want it, probably because it's never been released more than anything else. There is a GSBL guide which outlines all the functions so apart from BBA reg# and activation code generation routines there is no requirement for this to be open source.

I say that for a couple of reasons, firstly is, as you know, MBBS uses an activation code to generate a unique BBS reg #. This reg number is used extensively throughout the system and identifies systems on MajorLink. People compiling and determining their own reg #'s would cause chaos with these systems. So an alternative needs to be developed.

Secondly is the fact that people's IP (those who wrote modules) relied on this system to protect that IP. Regardless of how long ago that was, I have no intention of implementing. Banges that circumvents that IP protection.

Finally, Elwynor Technologies (Questman / Rick) and I have an agreement regarding the protection of that IP.

So my question is, what is it with the GSBL that you believe you need that you don't already have access to?

Ragnarok wrote:
> daniel_spain wrote:
>
> > oh i get it man, i have been an active sbbs developer since 1995, i purchased (i
> > believe 2.20 and Rob sent me 2.30b and a pretty bound book) i used it mainly as
> a
> > majorbbs door server but tinkered with baja now JavaScript, i even have a sbbs
> door
> > server modded so cleanly the only way to tell you are not still on the
> WorldGroup
> > system is the inabvility to communicate (though i am making breakthroughs on
> this).
> >
> > for modules, biggest problem we hit nowadays is the resources we had in the 90s
> not
> > to mention the costs of this stuff back then... i am going to give you a real
> > number...
> >
> > 1994...
> >
> > $249.00 for a 2 user system
> > $249.00 for every 6 you want to add up to 256
> >
> > that's just the software. then the galactiboxes, modems, addons, phone lines. i
> mean
> > it got pricey. and yes, you could return the investment back then.
> > i do not own any of the ip but i can tell you the main reason mbbs/wg never hit
> the
> > open market was the money spent. i have a bbs i bought from a guy
> > 4 years ago maybe, but you had to buy it all, the mbbs 6.25 system, the
> hardware,
> > everything, of course he parted with it at a fraction of the cost, but he said
> he
> > spent easily 24k just to start up in 1992 with a 256-line system ran out of a tv
> > station in richmond va. add inflation to that it gets high.
> > i think rick was dropping ducets at a face pace too, so right now my thoughts
> are a
> > money perspective.
> > synchronet as powerful as it is was like 99 for 2 lines and i think he offered
> > discounts the higher you went, but of course using qemm, desqview, os/2 and
> other
> > multitaskers your large line system took up some space and Tim put it all in one
> > package.
> > and sad thing is most the stuff locked in the gsbl for performance a good ai
> program
> > can replicate for you in seconds as most is in common libraries now but go back
> in
> > time and it was well ahead of the curve. i mean sometimes i look through the
> gsbl
> > source and compare to newer methods and he was able to do it in way fewer lines
> of
> > code.
>
> It's clear, I understand the idea.
> I know that story, as an anecdote I can tell you that I had the crazy idea of
> ​​buying WG in Argentina in the 90's from a seller who sold modems. I remember paying
> more than 200 dollars (a foreign currency for us) for a WG 3.0 for DOS.
> I only had a bbs with a telephone line, purely as a hobby and with no intention of
> recovering the money.
> But that was another time and another context.
>
> I'm thinking about WG in 2025.
> For example, how could the GSBL be replaced if nobody has access to it and doesn't
> know about it?
>
> From the first day I saw WG, I knew it was the most advanced bbs of the time. But
> what happened was that it remained stagnant over the years due to maintaining this
> closed development model.
> My question is: in 2025 is it still convenient to keep it like this? What are the
> benefits?
>
> Saludos!

well i cannot, nor will i speak for others... with that said, the benefits in 2025? well name your poison. i have spent enough years playing with this thing
and can pretty much make it do anything. i got a hell of a dev environment setup in an external rent-to-own shed i bought years ago and got several
prototype and test setups. one of them doesn't even use names/pw anymore, you log in with sms codes and your name is your email address and i got another
i been playing with my own version of dma with using rlogin and im making good progress, not to mention i got 4 or 5 tele-arena engines going, one of em the plan is to work over worldlink where bbs's can play with and against each other. its a hobby for me, a good outlet from the real world but im always around to help ya out if ya wanna get started on anything in particular. i could even make you a skeleton module. i have written about anything you can think of.. global command modules, global actions, trivia engines, muds, single-player rpgs, you name it. but i got serious adhd so i never finish.