Talk:The Major BBS

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Overpriced

I removed the line about "overpriced" add-ons. If you can find a good third-party source (and reference it) then it's ok. Other wise it's POV. Ifnord 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, for me, it's all firsthand knowledge. Most add-ons for software such as Renegade, WWIV, and so on varied wildly from as little as $10-15 to as high as $100, but software for MajorBBS (and then Worldgroup) typically cost hundreds of dollars (and it was rare when anything cost less than $100). This likely qualifies as original research, so I won't revert you, but it's something for future editors of this article to consider. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overpriced is relative. MajorBBS systems were large, most had more than 4 or 8 lines, and most charged money for use. There were fewer total systems around the globe than there were single line systems such as Renegade (Telegard derivative), WWIV (and derivatives), Telegard (WWIV derivative) (and derivatives), TAG (WWIV derivative), Forum (and derivatives), etc. And often, the add-ons were multiplayer/multiuser as befit the nature of the MajorBBS system, rather than a single application that the BBS "shelled out" to. A world of difference in use and complexity, as well as a world of difference in total population of potential sales. A competent door author offering a quality door for $15.00 could potentially make much more than a competent add-on developer for Galacticomm charging $150.00 for a 'similar' add-on. If a door author sold 10,000 copies and the ISV sold a few hundred, the door author made out in the long run. The pricing actually made a lot of sense when you analyze it that way; another point to consider is that the pricing forced SysOps (who were, until v6.2x, limited in how many add-ons they could actually run at one time) to carefully select what they added to their BBSes - it allowed a steady roll-out of services, and allowed systems to distinguish themselves from one another in order to survive as pay services. While both The Major BBS and, as an example, WWIV are both technically "BBSes" they are really completely different animals in form and function and can't easily be compared apples to apples. -- forceten 13:43 July 22 2007 ET

Worldgroup

Worldgroup redirects to here, but there's no mention of it. I know they're related, but I don't know the history. The article needs improvement on this point. --Short Circuit 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldgroup is, as far as I know, just a continuation of Major BBS. I think one of the big changes was internet connectivity (WG had TCP/IP, FTP, FINGER, SMTP/POP3, etc). I've been reluctant to try expanding the article to include this though as the only "source" I have is my head. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to dig up the manuals...my family used to run such a BBS. --Short Circuit 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldgroup 1 was the successor to Major BBS 6. G'comm was very adamant with people that it was a new product, even though it seemed to be just MBBS 6.2x with the name changed and a couple more add-on modules included standard, if I recall. It definitely wasn't anywhere near the change that MBBS 5.x to 6.x was. It appeared (to the staff on our BBS) that the main reason for this weird insistence was so that Galacticomm could claim that sysops who had paid for the rights to perpetual new version MBBS source code didn't have the right to this "new" product. Galacticomm's overall behavior from then on seemed to be more of that sort of thing, in my opinion. If I remember, MBBS 6 had two competing Internet suites: one from Vircom and one from Galacticomm. I think that, with Worldgroup, Galacticomm picked one (can't remember which) and included it in the standard package. --Closeapple 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between MBBS and WG was the graphical Windows client. MBBS had no client-side software (I was selling a text based client software as an addon), this was added in WG. Unfortunately this qualifies as original research but IMHO could be sourced from "The MBBS Restoration Project" Svobodat (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy

Galacticomm never filed for bankruptcy. The assets of the company were outright stolen by Harold Van Arnem and converted to his netVillage, LLC company.

The games...

The list of games seems to have missed Galactic Empire, an old favorite of mine. Are there any other games that have been missed? I vaguely remember there being at least one other space-colonization game, something in which the worlds actually moved slowly across the galactic map, but I cannot remember the name of it...

--- Nomad Of Norad 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think with everyone adding games to a list that was meant to be a overview, we should set-up a separate article listing games... Thoughts? --- User:forceten 18 Jul 2007 22:27 ET

"Self Promotion Links"

High Society is the official site of the majority of Worldgroup add-ons. If you want to remove the link, remove them all then.

Please read WP:FISHING. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter Online removed for self promotion. repstein2 ^Talk

Unsubstantiated Claims about Illegal Vendors

Removed the comment

"according to documents turned over by 3 different banks and 2 private lenders, Elwynor Technologies is not a legal entity allowed to sell worldgroup, please contact netvillage.com to purchase a legal copy of worldgroup. until the final hearing on 11/16/07 where the new owners of galacticomm inc are finalized netvillage is the only company legally able to sell new worldgroup products"

due to it being unverifiable, includes no references, documentation, links, or anything, and directly contradicts information that can be found in the Florida public court search that indicates otherwise. netVillage obtained control of Galacticomm against the direct and specific court order granting foreclosure rights (and lien rights -- see lien release filing when Galacticomm Technologies sold game software to Metropolis) to Union Planters Bank.

Note: Continuing to add this will result in its removal. If you have documents - post them. Besides, Elwynor Technologies never sold Worldgroup. That entity did not purchase the rights from Union Planters (Regions) bank.

-- User:forceten 18 July 2007 22:28 ET

MBBS4EVER

Added information about the MajorBBS revival due to the release of the MBBS4EVER software package.

And I removed it. MBBS4EVER is pirate software. It has nothing to do with Major BBS revival. Please do not post links to, or information about, pirate Software on wikipedia. You will be reported next time. (17 July 2007 15:45 ET)

My name is Hans and I added it back there are many countries where software older than 10 years is public domain. Wikipedia is a world wide resource.

You are not Hans, and there are zero countries on earth that considers 10 year old software public domain. The software is protected by copyright laws of the United States and the European Union. It's piracy, and it has no place on Wikipedia. -- User:forceten 18 Jul 2007 22:29 ET

Cite reliable third party sources!

Most of the edit war in the last month would have been avoided if the editors on each side would have read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I suggest the editors here read it now, since this whole article is uncited and anything questionable can be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Some specific points relevant to recent editing:

First item: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you can't point to where it has already been verified in public, don't add it to Wikipedia.
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Notice "reliable, third-party, published": that means someone who isn't part of the subject being researched, and already has a reputation for factual works.

Also read WP:NOR, especially WP:PSTS - secondary sources are appropriate for Wikipedia; "primary sources" such as a subject's own website, or documents unable to be specifically found based on the citation, are not appropriate. In short: Unless the proof has been cited specifically so that anyone can find it if they want to, it isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article, no matter how sure the editor is. --Closeapple 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closeapple, the people vandalizing this article don't care about verifiability OR truth. There are two groups here - one a group of pirates who released a huge archive of pirated material claiming it's "abandonware", which is not even a legal term, and not accurate since The Major BBS is now called Worldgroup and still exists. The other group is a group who stole the assets of Galacticomm during the time when it was shutting down and getting repossessed. This group has been committing felony fraud for several years, collecting money for what is essentially pirated software. As such, I've done my best to remove these postings, but they simply keep putting them back. It's one of the negatives about Wikipedia. --forceten 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but at least now it's been spelled out explicitly that uncitable information is a Wikipedia violation, and that there are other editors paying attention, not just readers. I guess we'll see if it settles down now. --Closeapple 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major BBS vs. Worldgroup

Major BBS for DOS is a completely different beast than worldgroup. Worldgroup was an attempt to create an aol-like environment, with more affluence towards taking advantage of the internet.

Although some of the base code is the same, with each new release of worldgroup, it transitioned more away from the original compatibility. For example, several major bbs mods worked on worldgroup 1, although not all. A few less with worldgroup 2, and pretty much none by worldgroup 3. At the same token, worldgroup 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, up to 4 have moved completely to a windows 16-bit platform, also with no compatibilities with major bbs.

Major BBS, by compatibility standards alone, could be protected under the new DMCA law, as unsold and/or unsupported software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.58.17 (talk • contribs)

Clearly posted by a non-developer. Worldgroup 1.0 was entirely based upon the Major BBS 6.25 source code. The decision to call it Worldgroup 1 came later in the process; it was originally targeted as a Major BBS release. Many of the underpinnings in Worldgroup 3 are exactly the same as they were in Major BBS 5. They are the same product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceten (talk • contribs)

I believe the first poster is referring to the clause in the DMCA that says:

"A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."

I don't believe that any of the software released for MajorBBS 6.25/DOS in its original form will run on the current versions of worldgroup for windows (3.2 or 3.3 depending on who you ask). The module's are significantly different.

This is definitely something that needs to be persued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.54.52.244 (talk) 16:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant whether DOS modules run on the NT version. That's apples and oranges. The fact remains that the DOS versions of MajorBBS/Worldgroup (the same software) can still be run, both natively on computers running DOS, and under emulation or Virtual Machines such as VMWare. It doesn't apply to the DMCA; and the DMCA clause itself doesn't apply to previous versions of products that are currently being sold! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceten (talk • contribs) 23:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a verifiable source that is selling MajorBBS 6.25 for DOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.167.189 (talk) 05:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, because as stated, the DMCA doesn't apply to prior versions of current products. For example, just because you can't buy 1996's version of Microsoft Excel, you can't now pirate MS Excel 2007, or pirate add-on packages for Excel 1996! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.151.232.33 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

baba şi mitraliera. You cannot run any MajorBBS 6.25 DOS modules under Worldgroup the "current" version of MajorBBS. MajorBBS for DOS its associated addons and formats are abandoned and have been for many years. MajorBBS for DOS is no longer sold and it would be impossible to use any software created for it on "current" versions (worldgroup). Excel 2007 will open files created by past versions, modify them and will save files in past formats that are compatible with the old versions. Excel's formats were not abandoned in new versions Excel is the same product. MajorBBS's formats were abandoned in new versions Worldgroup is not the same product as MajorBBS nor does it have any compatibility with it.

Just because some uninformed individual claims MajorBBS and Worldgroup are the same does not make it true. It is verifiability NOT the same NOR compatible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.249.4 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That someone would honestly claim that Major BBS and Worldgroup are completely different and distinct is astonishing. I've got complete source code to all versions of the product from Major BBS v2 to Worldgroup v3.x and I can tell you that the code base is the same. The name change was just that. Otherwise, why did modules for Major BBS 6 continue to function on Worldgroup 1 and Worldgroup 2 with very, very few exceptions? Because they were a money grab. There was little difference between Worldgroup 1 and 2, as well; they, in better times, would have been point versions, not major release versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceten (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of myself and others watching this thread you are saying that the modules written for MajorBBS will run on the current version of Worldgroup? If thats the case then the previous posters argument about the DCMA compatability standards is null and void because their formats ARE compatible and this thread is finished. If that is not the case and MajorBBS is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace then it could meet the DCMA obsoletion criteria referenced by the previous poster. It would not apply to modules for MajorBBS that are currently being sold or supported.

If an entity started legally selling MajorBBS again then the DCMA compatability standards would also not apply because the product would be reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Could somebody from Galacticomm, NetVillage or whoever please officially answer the question on whether or not MajorBBS's formats are compatible with the current version of Worldgroup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.253.182 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DOS module format is compatible with Major BBS 6, Worldgroup 1, and Worldgroup 2. However, the module format changed with Worldgroup 3 -- and the DOS 16bit

compiles DO NOT work on the Windows 32bit (2000/XP) version of the system. However, the assumption is invalid because most of the modules are still commercially available. Metropolis, Elwynor, Dialsoft, Infinetwork and Soft Arts between them own probably over 80% of the modules in existence. All five companies will still sell you modules. Other than Elwynor, the others still charge what they charged 10 years ago. A lot of people disagree with the prices, but that is a different story.

That's great the modules are still sold but where can you purchase MajorBBS? It looks like the modules are useless without it and Soft Arts says its been abandoned but they cant sell you a copy. Inquirys to Worldgroupware or gcomm.com to purchase it are also rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.202.118 (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License inquiry should go through the folks at themajorbbs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.206.78 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]