1) You are correct. Some Macintosh BBS packages were indeed ported from their PC counterparts. Even Hermes II -- the software that I use -- was ported from, and improved upon, WWIV.
2) You noted: "The BBS is a dead concept, almost completely." Agreed. That was precisely the point of my three-part question; that is, to demonstrate that Macintosh BBSing is more dead than alive. Trust me; I have no illusions. I don't anticipate a flood of people -- Macintosh users or otherwise -- returning to PC-ANSI-based BBSing and typing commands at their keyboard; particularly when point-and-click-and-scroll has been around for over two decades now.
3) I can't speak for anyone else here, but personally, there is no confusion in my mind regarding the relationship between ASCII and ANSI art and BBSes. True; ASCII and ANSI art can be, and has in fact been done outside of the sphere of BBSing. Nevertheless, it was an integral -- and huge -- part of the BBSing scene.
4) You likewise noted: "the whole point of this conversation seems to be justifying BBSes." No, that isn't it at all. I could just as easily argue that from my perspective, your whole point seems to be to knock it down the best you can. You are certainly entrenched in your views.
I believe that I have already made it clear a few times why I personally chose to resurrect my BBS after so many years. We both agree that there is the nostalgia factor. But that isn't the only reason.
For me personally, it has also been a lot of fun to set up my board again, draw new ANSI screens, etc. Even if my BBS only receives a handful of visitors, that is still okay, because I have been having fun in the process. Actually, there are just under three dozen registered users now.
Resurrecting my BBS has also been quite the learning experience, because through trial and tribulation, and with help from the patient folks over at emaculation.com, I learned how to set up both SheepShaver and Basilisk II, and get Internet connectivity working with both my BBS and my Hotline server. I loved the challenge, and I feel that I have accomplished something on a personal level. So there is that as well.
Also, as I mentioned before, setting up my board again provides an opportunity for the younger generation to experience a part of computing history. It has also allowed other people in my own age group to reminisce and relive the past a bit. There's nothing wrong with that.
So again, my goal here has not been to try to justify BBSing in some way. It has merely been to explain why I personally am doing it again, and invite anyone else along who may want to go for the ride.
5) You also stated: "Hermes was last updated in 1999." That is not an accurate statement. As I mentioned previously, Hermes II was last updated in 2013. If you visit the GitHub website, you can examine the commits yourself. I in fact downloaded the source and compiled it in THINK Pascal -- with the developer's assistance -- so that I am now probably the only SysOp who is running the very latest version: Hermes II 3.5.11.
As I likewise mentioned before, Michael Alyn Miller -- who is the current owner of the code, and the most recent developer -- made Hermes II open source in 2013, and no one has touched it since that time. For all intents and purposes, Hermes II probably is dead, unless some resourceful and motivated THINK Pascal programmers decide to modernize it and recompile it for Mac OS X. However, it isn't very likely that that is ever going to happen.
6) Actually, I probably could have stated my question more clearly:
a. How many Macintosh-based BBS packages are still being developed?
b. How many Macintosh-based BBS packages are still being updated?
c. How many Macintosh-based BBS packages are being used by a large number of people?
If you accept my definition of what a true BBS is, then the answer to all three questions is obviously "None."
And with that statement, I don't think that I have much more to say regarding this issue. I don't seek to justify, and feel no need to justify, what I do. BBSing is just a fun thing for me, plain and simple, so I am doing it.
2) You noted: "The BBS is a dead concept, almost completely." Agreed. That was precisely the point of my three-part question; that is, to demonstrate that Macintosh BBSing is more dead than alive. Trust me; I have no illusions. I don't anticipate a flood of people -- Macintosh users or otherwise -- returning to PC-ANSI-based BBSing and typing commands at their keyboard; particularly when point-and-click-and-scroll has been around for over two decades now.
3) I can't speak for anyone else here, but personally, there is no confusion in my mind regarding the relationship between ASCII and ANSI art and BBSes. True; ASCII and ANSI art can be, and has in fact been done outside of the sphere of BBSing. Nevertheless, it was an integral -- and huge -- part of the BBSing scene.
4) You likewise noted: "the whole point of this conversation seems to be justifying BBSes." No, that isn't it at all. I could just as easily argue that from my perspective, your whole point seems to be to knock it down the best you can. You are certainly entrenched in your views.
I believe that I have already made it clear a few times why I personally chose to resurrect my BBS after so many years. We both agree that there is the nostalgia factor. But that isn't the only reason.
For me personally, it has also been a lot of fun to set up my board again, draw new ANSI screens, etc. Even if my BBS only receives a handful of visitors, that is still okay, because I have been having fun in the process. Actually, there are just under three dozen registered users now.
Resurrecting my BBS has also been quite the learning experience, because through trial and tribulation, and with help from the patient folks over at emaculation.com, I learned how to set up both SheepShaver and Basilisk II, and get Internet connectivity working with both my BBS and my Hotline server. I loved the challenge, and I feel that I have accomplished something on a personal level. So there is that as well.
Also, as I mentioned before, setting up my board again provides an opportunity for the younger generation to experience a part of computing history. It has also allowed other people in my own age group to reminisce and relive the past a bit. There's nothing wrong with that.
So again, my goal here has not been to try to justify BBSing in some way. It has merely been to explain why I personally am doing it again, and invite anyone else along who may want to go for the ride.
5) You also stated: "Hermes was last updated in 1999." That is not an accurate statement. As I mentioned previously, Hermes II was last updated in 2013. If you visit the GitHub website, you can examine the commits yourself. I in fact downloaded the source and compiled it in THINK Pascal -- with the developer's assistance -- so that I am now probably the only SysOp who is running the very latest version: Hermes II 3.5.11.
As I likewise mentioned before, Michael Alyn Miller -- who is the current owner of the code, and the most recent developer -- made Hermes II open source in 2013, and no one has touched it since that time. For all intents and purposes, Hermes II probably is dead, unless some resourceful and motivated THINK Pascal programmers decide to modernize it and recompile it for Mac OS X. However, it isn't very likely that that is ever going to happen.
6) Actually, I probably could have stated my question more clearly:
a. How many Macintosh-based BBS packages are still being developed?
b. How many Macintosh-based BBS packages are still being updated?
c. How many Macintosh-based BBS packages are being used by a large number of people?
If you accept my definition of what a true BBS is, then the answer to all three questions is obviously "None."
And with that statement, I don't think that I have much more to say regarding this issue. I don't seek to justify, and feel no need to justify, what I do. BBSing is just a fun thing for me, plain and simple, so I am doing it.