The page contains information information found on the internet with the help from community members on Facebook, Reddit, and many more...
It was said that MAGNET most likely ran one of the two BBS software packages:
CommuniTree BBS
Apple II: DiversiDial
Thank You: Reddit:defmacro-jam, Facebook:Ian Underwood, Facebook:Jonathan Adar, Facebook:Petar Puskarich, Facebook:Gregory Markle, Facebook:Matt Barkdull
Contents
CommuniTree BBS
CommuniTree (first microcomputer BBS system)
Excerpt from Keynote given by Clay Shirky at ETech (April, 2003)
Apple II: DiversiDial
In 1979, CBBS went online to the public in Chicago, enabling individuals to read and write messages to and from many other individuals, like a standard bulletin board in the nonvirtual world, where people tack up notices of community interest on a piece of corkboard in a public place. Modems were expensive and slow, and messages weren't structured in terms of topics or conferences, but people were using their PCs and their telephones to communicate, and that in itself was exciting for the first cadres of enthusiasts. Equally important was the fact that neither the communications nor the computer companies had any idea what people like Christensen were up to.
In 1979, the BBS community was restricted almost exclusively to microcomputer hobbyists, and their interests included all kinds of questions--as long as the questions had something to do with how to make personal computers work. People who used the technology to talk about pets and politics and religion would come later. There was one significant exception, however: the CommuniTree BBS in Santa Cruz, California, went online in 1978, paralleling Christensen and Suess's efforts in Chicago. I stumbled onto CommuniTree myself when I first started BBS-hopping, and what I found there impressed me enough to save some of the postings for ten years.
CommuniTree, starting with its name, was specifically focused on the notion of using BBSs to build community, at a time when most other BBSers were still more interested in the technology itself. The Tree was still active in 1982-1983, when I first started exploring the online world. The item that caught my interest enough to print and file it had to do with some people who were designing a new kind of community based on spiritual practice of a nontheological nature. They called it ORIGINS.
ORIGINS started in the "create your own religion" discussion area. In the midst of an overcrowded northern California marketplace for high-priced, highly organized enlightenment for sale or rent, I liked their declaration that "ORIGINS has no leaders, no official existence, nothing for sale. Because it started in an open computer conference, no one knows who all the creators are." The central tenets of the movement were "practices"--actions to be remembered and undertaken in everyday life in the material world. The kind of world the originators of ORIGINS had in mind is wryly evident in the practices its adherents promised to do every day: "Leverage a favor, Ask for help and get it, Use charisma, Finish a job, Use magic, Observe yourself, Share Grace."
I often wondered what had become of them. At the First Conference on Cyberspace in 1990 in Austin, Texas, I ran into somebody who remembered. The CommuniTree BBS had a chance of being the seed for an entire network, but according to one observer who participated in its heyday, Allucquere Rosanne Stone, it fell victim to a problem that continues to plague the BBS community--people who use BBSs as an arena for acting out antisocial impulses. "The students, at first mostly boys and with the linguistic proclivities of pubescent males, discovered the Tree's phone number and wasted no time in logging onto the conferences," Stone recalled, in her presentation to the Austin conference.
They appeared uninspired by the relatively intellectual and spiritual air of the ongoing debates, and proceeded to express their dissatisfaction in ways appropriate to their age, sex, and language abilities. Within a short time the Tree was jammed with obscene and scatological messages. There was no easy way to monitor them as they arrived, and no easy way to remove them once they were in the system. . . .
Within a few months, the Tree had expired, choked to death with what one participant called `the consequences of freedom of expression.' During the years of its operation, however, several young participants took the lessons and implications of such a community away with them, and proceeded to write their own systems. Within a few years there was a proliferation of on-line virtual communities of somewhat less visionary character but vastly superior message-handling capability. . . .
The visionary character of CommuniTree's electronic ontology proved an obstacle to the Tree's survival. Ensuring privacy in all aspects of the Tree's structure and enabling unlimited access to all conferences did not work in a context of increasing availability of terminals to young men who did not necessarily share the Tree gods' ideas of what counted as community. As one Tree veteran put it, `The barbarian hordes mowed us down.' Thus, in practice, surveillance and control proved necessary adjuncts to maintaining order in the virtual community.
CommuniTree's focus on social and spiritual matters was an exception for the era. The first generations of BBSers were the home brewers who had a lot of technical knowledge about how their medium worked. People in a few cities began to set up BBSs. The prices for modems in the early 1980s were high--$500 or more for anything faster than a glacially slow 300 bits per second (most adults can read faster than that). Home-brew telecommunications was still a province for hands-on hobbyists who could debug their own software and configure their own hardware. Then Tom Jennings came along.
CommuniTree was one of the very first microcomputer BBS systems. The San Francisco–based electronic bulletin-board service (BBS) began in 1978 as a social experiment in free speech and community building. It was shut down as a result of vandalism by young users in 1982. It featured a unique tree-structure for messages as opposed to the conventional timestamp ordering of messages. This allowed users to organize information in a structured way.
The Communitree software ran on an Apple ][ with 280K of floppy storage. The program was all in RAM so the floppies were entirely available for (compressed) messages and the index. There was nothing to break into, all the messages were available, so there was no real security need for passwords. Another feature was the fairwitnesses, people with passwords, who could hide messages they thought were inappropriate.
The code was written in a language called Forth, and not documented.
CommuniTree. Within a few months of the first BBS’s appearance, a San Francisco group headed by John James, a programmer and visionary thinker, had developed the idea that the BBS was a virtual community, a community that promised radical transformation of existing society and the emergence of new social forms. The CommuniTree Group, as they called themselves, saw the BBS in McLuhanesque terms as transformative because of the ontological structure it presupposed and simultaneously created--the mode of tree-structured discourse and the community that spoke it--and because it was another order of “extension,” a kind of prosthesis in McLuhan's sense. The BBS that the CommuniTree Group envisioned was an extension of the participant's instrumentality into a virtual social space.
The CommuniTree Group quite correctly foresaw that the BBS in its original form was extremely limited in its usefulness. Their reasoning was simple. The physical bulletin board for which the BBS was the metaphor had the advantage of being quickly scannable. By its nature, the physical bulletin board was small and manageable in size. There was not much need for bulletin boards to be organized by topic. But the on-line BBS could not be scanned in any intuitively satisfactory way. There were primitive search protocols in the early BBSs, but they were usually restricted to alphabetical searches or searches by keywords. The CommuniTree Group proposed a new kind of BBS that they called a tree-structured conference, employing as a working metaphor both the binary tree protocols in computer science and also the organic qualities of trees as such appropriate to the 1970s. Each branch of the tree was to be a separate conference that grew naturally out of its root message by virtue of each subsequent message that was attached to it. Conferences that lacked participation would cease to grow, but would remain on-line as archives of failed discourse and as potential sources of inspiration for other, more flourishing conferences.
References
Communitree archive[1]
Communitree Manual pages[2]
The Virtual Community by Howard Reingold page 136[3]
The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age By Allucquère Rosanne Stone[4]
1. http://software.bbsdocumentary.com/APPLE/II/COMMUNITREE/
In the Seventies -- this is a pattern that's shown up on the network over and over again -- in the Seventies, a BBS called Communitree launched, one of the very early dial-up BBSes. This was launched when people didn't own computers, institutions owned computers.
Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue. "Communitree" -- the name just says "California in the Seventies." And the notion was, effectively, throw off structure and new and beautiful patterns will arise.
And, indeed, as anyone who has put discussion software into groups that were previously disconnected has seen, that does happen. Incredible things happen. The early days of Echo, the early days of usenet, the early days of Lucasfilms Habitat, over and over again, you see all this incredible upwelling of people who suddenly are connected in ways they weren't before.
And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. And who, in 1978, was hanging out in the room with the computer and the modems in it, but the boys of that high school. And the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. They were interested in running amok and posting four-letter words and nyah-nyah-nyah, all over the bulletin board.
And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."
But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down.
Now you could ask whether or not the founders' inability to defend themselves from this onslaught, from being overrun, was a technical or a social problem. Did the software not allow the problem to be solved? Or was it the social configuration of the group that founded it, where they simply couldn't stomach the idea of adding censorship to protect their system. But in a way, it doesn't matter, because technical and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no way to completely separate them.
What matters is, a group designed this and then was unable, in the context they'd set up, partly a technical and partly a social context, to save it from this attack from within. And attack from within is what matters. Communitree wasn't shut down by people trying to crash or syn-flood the server. It was shut down by people logging in and posting, which is what the system was designed to allow. The technological pattern of normal use and attack were identical at the machine level, so there was no way to specify technologically what should and shouldn't happen. Some of the users wanted the system to continue to exist and to provide a forum for discussion. And other of the users, the high school boys, either didn't care or were actively inimical. And the system provided no way for the former group to defend itself from the latter.
Now, this story has been written many times. It's actually frustrating to see how many times it's been written. You'd hope that at some point that someone would write it down, and they often do, but what then doesn't happen is other people don't read it.
Author: Bill Basham
Software Website: http://www.ddial.com/
Multi-line chat system for Apple IIs, required multiple phone lines. Very popular chat system starting in 1985, continues with a hard core group of folks at the website listed below (ddial.com). Later ported to IBM Compatibles.
Daniel Bowers describes ddial this way: "DiversiDial (DDial) was software from 1984(?) by Bill Basham for the Apple ][ that allowed 7 modems to simultaneously connect to 1 computer to chat. It suppored 300 baud modems. One of the 7 'slots' could also be used to connect via POTS to other similar machines, yielding vast (for the time) networks of chat rooms that flourished in the US from 1985 - 1990 or so. It described itself as "CB for the computer". (In fact, you could jerry-rig the Apple's joystick port and get an 8th modem to work.) Many chat-related concepts we use today were found (but probably not invented) there -- emoticons, phreaking (to pay the horrendous phone bills), channel owners (called 'co's, actually short for co-sysop), etc."
Jim Meyer says: " DiversiDial (DDial for short), an early Apple II CB simulator that worked by filling an Apple II with modems. Later versions could run across two machines, bridged by hardware, allowing 12 people (14 including both consoles) to chat at a time, as well as the ability to have one system call another and pass traffic between them (called "Links"). Most others charged flat rates of $15 or $20 per month; some had a basic and advanced price, differentiated by how long you could chat before "timing out" and being logged off, or how long you had to wait after timing out before you were allowed to log in again. The author, Bill Whose-last-name-I-forget, ran one or two in Houston, Texas; one of them, PennyNet, was so-named for its penny-a-minute rate. DDial was very popular in Texas in the mid-80s; there were DDials in Houston, Dallas, Austin, Corpus Christi. There was definitely one in Detroit, Michigan; I seem to recall other states as well, but not clearly. Before the linking feature was introduced, some users would call long distance to chat with people in other cities. This often led to long distance visits, parties, and romances (for myself included)."