On 28 Apr 99 at 15:47, Gerd wrote:
> Hello Andrew, hello all,
>
> > > At login, FBB showed a date of 01.01.190 (yes, that's no typo!).
> > > Although we were estonished we stopped further investigating this
> > > problem since we didn't want to corrupt our mail database.
> > >
> > > Because we all are no C specialists we have one question: Will
> > > there be a fix available timely or will we have to migrate to some
> > > other BBS?
> >
> > There will be no fix from F6FBB, his solution is to upgrade to a later
> > version.
> > This is a problem for those FBB BBSes running v5 code on hardware
> > which isn't man enough for v7.
>
> Unfortunately, I forgot to mention that we used FBB 7.00g for this
> test.
>
> Cheers
>
> Gerd
Briefly. I am using XFBB 7.00g25...is this included in the buggy
ones ?
Just to be aware. I THOUGHT it would be no problem with Linux...
seems I might have been wrong.
To the point...you used FBB 7.00g...is that the DOS version ?
Has anyone tried out XFBB (any Linux versions) ? Many of us certainly
would be concerned.
On a version ID, I understand : FBB ... DOS Version
WinFBB or WFBB ... Windows Version
XFBB ... Linux version.
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
I am going to quote James Dugal, N5KNX, on what he published about
this matter on JNOS documentation. For JNOS he chose the following
representation: any year larger than 50 is 19xx, say, 99 means 1999,
and any number smaller than 50 is 20xx, say 00 is 2000. The idea
behind this is that JNOS 1.11 would be so archaic in year 2050 that
nobody would be using it. Seems a smart solution to me.
73 de Jose, CO2JA
---
Ing. Jose A. Amador | Telf: (537) 20-7814
Depto de Telecomunicaciones | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISPJAE |
