FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1/1.
Copyright (C) 1987, by the International FidoNet Association.
All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted
for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA.
Fourteen Weeks to FidoCon!
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
Politics ................................................. 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
A Brief Put-Down ......................................... 2
MACE Utilities - A Sysop's View .......................... 4
2400 Baud Modems ......................................... 5
A Review of Opus ......................................... 7
NY MetroNet Resolution ................................... 8
Vietnam Veterans EchoConference .......................... 9
3. COLUMNS .................................................. 11
The Regular Irregular Column ............................. 11
4. NOTICES .................................................. 18
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 18
IFNA Board of Directors Ballot ........................... 19
FidoNews 4-18 Page 1 11 May 1987
I heard an interesting thought the other day. Some local nets
are more "powerful" than others. I'm still trying to figure out
what this means.
Oh, I know, we're talking politics again. The techie in me
rebels at this. "Political reasons" rank right up there with
"historical reasons" among the very worst reasons for doing
something in a particular way.
But I've been in applications work long enough to realize that
political reasons, as much as I may dislike them, are still
reasons, and are valid in their own context.
But I don't think that FidoNet can afford to get bogged down in a
morass of politics.
You see, there's a funny thing about political reasons. They can
work against you as easily as for you. Almost by definition they
have no rational basis in facts. Technical reasons, on the other
hand, almost always work FOR you.
FidoNet is dedicated to the free flow of information. CPCUG
originated that phrase, I think, and most boards I've called
quote it in one place or another. We just mean it more than
most. We're dealing here with the free flow of information
between 1500 or more systems around the world, serving countless
users covering the whole spectrum of philosophies. Not only do
we have the world's largest (mainly) free mail system, we also
have that tremendous amplifier of personal expression, echomail.
But keeping that information flowing is a technical operation.
We serve the most people the best by ensuring that the technical
aspects of our network run as smoothly as possible. Only this
way can we serve everyone. This means that politics have no
place in the operation of the network. The network fails to
serve us if it does not serve us impartially.
No matter what your philosophy or affiliation, The Word will not
go out unless the network runs smoothly. Yes, stand by your
beliefs and express your opinions, but please lay aside your
special interests when it comes to matters of network operation.
It seems like every time I talk to anyone these days they are
raving about what a great editor they have, and in every case
it's always BRIEF. The BRIEF editor seems to be taking the
country by storm. It's advocates often sound like the computer
equivalent of newly converted members of a religious cult. I
finally got my hands on a copy of BRIEF so I could try out this
wonder editor for myself.
BRIEF stands for Basic Reconfigurable Interactive Editing
Facility, and they mean it with a vengence. Calling it
"reconfigurable" is about like calling the Grand Canyon a valley.
As near as I can tell, the actual editor itself is fairly simple,
with the usual "type a character and it gets shoved in" stuff.
It gets its power from a bunch of built-in macro atoms and a
complex macro language. It comes with a large library of macros
that do all sorts of neat things for a programmer, plus you can
define your own macros to be about as sophisticated as you like.
For example, here's a nifty feature that is the main reason why
I'm sweating over this thing so much: If you are working on a C
program and you want to see if it has any syntax errors, press
Alt F10 and BRIEF will run your compiler for you. If you get any
error messages, BRIEF will trap the error and show it to you,
while zapping your cursor over to the offending line.
Sounds neat, eh? It IS neat. Though of course it suffers from
some predictable shortcomings. It can only zap you to the line
reported by your compiler, so it can never be better than the
compiler at pinpointing the actual faulty line. My compiler has
a few errors that get reported on the line holding the brace that
closes a function, so that's where BRIEF goes. Well, at least it
finds the right function for you.
I could make a case here for it being TOO all-fired powerful and
flexible. In fact, I will. A number one, don't ever even THINK
about running it on a 4.77 mHz XT. A plain ol' PC or XT just
ain't got the horsepower for this kind of editor. I guess that
means don't try running it under DoubleDOS, Desqview, or any
other multitasker unless you are really into frustration.
One of the features that sends C programmers into raptures is its
automatic indenting and template ability. You can set it up so
when you type "f " (the space is important) as the first thing on
a line, it changes it into "for ()" and puts your cursor in the
parens. Nifty, but I don't WANT a space between the "for" and
the parens. So okay, I can change that. So after an hour of
FidoNews 4-18 Page 3 11 May 1987
thumbing through the book and searching the macros I find it and
fix it. Another twenty minutes of thumbing the book and trying
things even makes it so BRIEF does what I said. No hassle yet; I
was new to it, so I expected a fair amount of manual thumbing.
Here's how I spent the rest of my day:
BRIEF can also do fancy things for you with braces. When you hit
an open brace, it automatically fixes up the indents and sets the
closing brace for you. It understands two different ways of
doing braces with indents.
Method 1: while(x) {
a = b;
b = c;
}
Method 2: while(x)
{
a = b;
b = c;
}
But I don't like either of those methods. I like:
while(x)
{ a = b;
b = c;
}
I've found the macro that handles this (I think). One day I may
even understand it. If I'm lucky, I may even someday be able to
fix it. First I'll have to learn the macro language, which is no
easy task. It's some sort of cross between C, LISP, and
something else. Expressions look like:
I suppose I'll keep slugging away at it. BRIEF is loaded with
features, and I love features. One of these days I'll probably
figure out how it works, and then I'll probably be as much in
love with it as everyone else seems to be. But meanwhile it
strikes me as an incredibly bloated example of rampant
featuritis, almost (but not quite) as bad as the supermenued
BackComm program.
Ever since I got hit by a 'trojan' type program 2 years ago I
have been searching for the 'ultimate' recovery program. Now I
can say I have found it!
Mace Utilities will recover a hard disk that has been formatted
either accidently or otherwise! It is a rather smart utility and
can find files that you thought were lost forever on your disks.
Recently I got hit with another 'trojan' type program. With MACE
I was able to recover the disk entirely (after 1 call to the
author of MACE) in just under 1 hour. The author of the 'trojan'
knew of MACE and made a very good attempt at erasing (read
destroying) the file MACE writes to the disk containing the disk
(FAT) data. However MACE also writes files to areas of the disk
most people don't even know about (I had to call to find this
out) and as such is relatively safe from 'trojans' assuming the
programs are still on the disk. For the recovery function alone
MACE is worth the money!
As a Sysop I also use MACE to diagnose and condense my drives.
With files constantly being created, erased, and moved between
sub-directories my disk slows down very quickly. For those new to
hard drives, when the computer goes to create a file it searches
the File Allocation Table for the next available spot and writes
the file to that area. This IS NOT always the first available
spot. More often than not you have at least 25% of the directory
entries in the FAT unavailable. These ARE NOT made available
again until a Chkdsk is run, or better yet when you condense and
un-fragment your disk.
Due to the constant erasing, copying, moving of files, some files
are not located in contiguous sectors. What this means simply is
that the drive heads have to move to many different areas to read
one file.
MACE allows you to condense which simply moves all entries in
each directory to the top of the file, speeding searches
especially if you use the PATH command.
Then you can un-fragment the drive which simply makes sure that
every file is written in contiguous blocks thus making head moves
less frequent resulting in faster access.
All in all a very good utility that should be in every Sysop's
library of utilities.
I have seen all kinds of stuff on why one brand of modem won't
connect to another. Heres something I picked up on the boards a
while back.
* * *
When you call a 1200/2400 bps modem, it answers in either of two
ways. If it is a CCITT-V.22bis compliant modem, it answers with
3.3 seconds of 2100Hz tone, then 75 mS of silence, and then a
burst of training signals to get the other modem to adjust to the
line.
If the answering modem receives training signals in response, it
assumes that it will be talking 2400 bps using 16-QAM and you
have a 2400 bps connection. If instead of the training signals,
it receives 4- PSK from the originating modem in response to its
answering tones, it assumes that it will be a 1200 bps connection
and switches off the training and (in the USA) uses 4-PSK (Bell
212 standard). [European modems use CCITT-V.22 (not V.22bis) for
1200 bps. Some modems claim to handle this as well as 212 for
1200 bps.
Here's the rub: some of the 1200/2400 modems don't answer using
the CCITT V.22bis handshake. They instead answer with a different
handshake (the engineer referred to it as the Bell 2400 bps
handshake). After going off-hook, the "Bell handshake" answering
modem sends 2125Hz (which is pretty close to the CCITT 2100Hz
tone) and waits for the originating modem to respond either with
1200bps 4-PSK or with QAM training signals. It then switches to
the appropriate mode, and either sends some training signals for
2400, or 4-PSK for 1200.
Some modems can handle both kinds of handshakes. I have, for
example, no problem calling a Courier with a Courier, anything
with a Racal-Vadic or a MultiTech, etc. But my Courier can't call
my Case-Rixon; an Anchor didn't connect to the Courier, etc. No,
I don't have a chart of what talks to what, for reasons that I'll
explain:
The point here is that I'm not interested really in what talks to
what on a brandname basis. I want instead to find some brands
that "do the right thing" for both handshakes, and recommend
those. So far I've found a couple (Racal-Vadic and Multitech come
to mind) and I'll choose among those and others based on other
factors, such as interface, reliability, mounting, etc. for the
list of ones I recommend.
But the other manufacturers need to get on the stick and get it
right. It seems to me that stating that a modem is CCITT-V.22bis
compliant also means that it does the CCITT handshake, and yet I
can call several of the modems out there and just by listening
FidoNews 4-18 Page 6 11 May 1987
(no 75mS interruption, guys!) tell that they're using the "bell
handshake".
And the ones that I've tested that answer with the "bell
handshake" don't seem to accept the CCITT handshake when you dial
out. Moral: It may be 2400 bps but they're not all compatible.
C'mon, guys!
Modem manufacturers! Heed my words! Since there is a published
international standard and one other noncompliant "standard", you
need to accept both! And you should probably default to the
international standard when you answer.
Listening test: I call the modem and listen. After it goes off
hook, I hear in my telephone either
1) a steady high-pitched tone, then a very brief interruption,
then another slightly-different-pitch tone, then it
disconnects. -or-
2) a steady high-pitched tone that lasts until it disconnects.
I surmise that #1 is the CCITT handshake. I just tried this with
a Case-Rixon 1224 and a USR Courier. The Case-Rixon did #1, the
Courier did #2. If I call both on a conference call, I hear what
could be a 25Hz beat note between them during the first tone on
answer.
So, I'm not disparaging anybody's modems. But I wish there was
more standardization so that I don't have to buy one of each to
test them before we make some big mistake.
I've used both Fido and Opus to run this BBS and I find no
comparison between the two in as far as flexibility or
capability. Opus is a hands down winner. Here are just a few
examples of the improvement:
o my Fido subdirectory contained some 145 files the system used
just to operate, my Opus subdirectory contains about 85 files.
o Fido has no way to effectively run "outside" programs other
than using something like Outer and then re-logging into Fido
like a new caller when finished, Opus exits to "outside"
programs like they were part of Opus and returns a caller to
the main menu.
o Fido's command letter could not be changed, Opus can change the
command letter.
o Fido was rigidly Fido, Opus allows for the embedding of calls
to other programs or files expanding the utility of the whole
program.
Actually the list goes on. The command structure is different,
but its not so different that someone familiar with Fido would be
completely lost. The main areas of confusion are the Message
Menu selections. I think Opus should include in that menu a note
telling callers that by entering the number of a message, you
display that message. Nonetheless, I think combining both of
Fido's message menus into one menu is a good idea. When I
converted, I took the time to switch the help levels of my
callers to novice. That seemed to make a big difference in their
acceptance of the new system.
In short, dispite some of the failings of Opus, it's a strong
contender for Fido's place in the sun. I've never used BBS
software that contained so many ways to personalize a board's
presentation so much, nor offer me so much flexibility in getting
around problems.
We, the assembled sysops of Net 107*, have unanimously voted in
favor of supporting the following statement:
As members of FidoNet, we feel that it is in the best interests
of FidoNet and the sysops who comprise it to affirm support of
the current interim leadership of IFNA and of their decisions to
date relative to continued operation of the Network and also
toward the establishment of a more formally structured and
controlled organization. This includes support of not only the
interim Board of Directors and their coordinators, but their
creation and exercise of the precepts contained in POLICY3.DOC.
We encourage their continued efforts on our behalf until such
time as the new Board of Directors is elected and installed as
the governing control of IFNA.
Gerrie Blum 107/169 Rich Mazzara 107/104
John Cottrell 107/132 Tom Marshall 107/524
Al Arango 107/523 Bill Bertholf 107/102
Larry Manka 107/333 Gee Wong 107/312
Dave OShea 107/35 Burt Juda 107/528
Bill Wilkes 107/211 Karl Schinke 107/16
Rick Siegel 107/27 Jim Nicholson 107/530
Pete Keller 107/522 Don Daniels 107/200
Thom Henderson 107/8 Marv Shelton 107/519
Mike Fuchus 107/326 Irene Henderson 107/6
Larry Porter 107/112 Mitch Kessler 107/269
*Sam Saulys 141/488
There is one other wall, of course.
One we never speak of.
One we never see,
One which separates memory from madness.
In a place no one offers flowers.
THE WALL WITHIN.
We permit no visitors.
I started out with Steve Mason's poem because it tells a story in
itself. I believe it accurately describes in very few words one
of the very many complex, and probably one of the most protected,
commonalities shared not only among a vast majority of military
combat veterans of ANY war, but among nearly every person who has
witnessed and survived any kind of life-threatening traumatic
experience as well. This "wall" shields us from our darkest,
most horrifying memories. It is, without question, one of the
most significant components manifested in Post-Traumatic Stress
Syndrome (PTS).
One of the toughest things for any combat veteran can be to open
his or herself up (yes, there are women who have seen combat,
too) to another human being and share the traumatic events from
their past. It is rare in this instance when the occasion can be
found when both the will and and a sympathetic, non-critical ear
are both available at the same time. Most us of find it very
hard, even when conditions are perfect, to "tell it like it
really was". One has to have an awful lot of trust in a person
to risk the consequences of lowering "the wall" , much less to
permit others to visit among our long-since buried memories and
feelings. When it gets right down to the line, most of us lose
the courage to face the emotional ramifications which
unmercifully enshroud us when we dare to share our deepest, most
personal secrets with someone else. It is especially difficult
when that other person has never experienced the same kind of
traumatic events, making it difficult if not impossible for them
to truly understand our pain.
How do you tell someone who has never experienced combat what it
REALLY feels like to witness a comrades violent death? What will
that person think of you when you tell them what it REALLY feels
like to have to take the life of another human being? Is the
emotional relief from getting it off your chest REALLY worth the
gamble of possible rejection, ridicule, or criticism? Well, I
can tell you from my own experiences that is is far less painful
to keep the "walls" in place than it is to face up to the
terrifying realities they imprison.
There are a few places where I can feel safe bringing up those
old, painful memories; places where I can slowly pull each one
out and deal with it in a comfortable atmosphere free of mis-
understanding and criticism. The local Vietnam Veterans Outreach
Center is one, but I sometimes have problems in one-on-ones. The
FidoNews 4-18 Page 10 11 May 1987
others are computer bulletin boards where I can find others like
myself who have been there and understand where I am coming from.
I have also discovered in the past several months that there are
an awful lot of non-vets, many who were either not born or were
just too young to serve at the time, who can teach me a lot about
myself and the residue of feelings still lingering beneath the
surface of my consiousness. I have "met" countless ex-protesters
who have buried feelings of their OWN which need to be expressed.
And, I am sure now, that we all have shared a learning experience
together as we communicate our thoughts and feelings to one
another.
I started a bulletin board just like that in my home in San Jose,
California, now the Vietnam Veteran's Valhalla. I also conceived
a national echo-mail conference devoted to the Vietnam Veteran
and put out the call for supporters across the country. That
call was answered by so many Fido, Opus, and TBBS sysops that I
wouldn't attempt to name them all for fear of leaving one out.
Together, we have linked our systems between the east and west
coasts and I am proud to boast of our success, and proud of the
long hours and hard work they have ALL put toward making the
conference a grand success!
There are people from all walks of life contributing to the
National Vietnam Veterans Echo-Mail Conference; combat and non-
combat veterans from all wars, non-veterans of all ages, and
Vietnamese military veterans and refugees. Just because you are
not a Vietnam Veteran, or even a military veteran at all for that
matter, is no reason not to call one of the boards closest to
you. All you need is an interest in learning about the realities
of the Vietnam war, and hearing about it from those of us who
were actually there; who know the true cost of war and have paid
that price. No historian, unless he or she has been there
personally, can tell you what WE can! And conversely, no one can
tell US what YOU can!
We want to put out the call again and ask for the support of
other sysops around the country to become a part of this valuable
public service by hosting the Vietnam Veterans Echo-Mail
Conference in your area, or just to call and browse through the
messages accumilated since June of last year. Please contact me,
Todd Looney, at the Vietnam Veteran's Valhalla in San Jose,
California by FidoNet mail at node 143/27, or direct at
(408) 293-7894, or one of the coordinating SysOps listed below:
Mike Sellaroli The Board #1 200/100 213-498-6425
Jerry Hindle SpaceStation Opus 123/6 901-353-4563
Bob Richards New York Transfer 107/105 718-442-1056
Jerry Nuckols Lighting Rod 18/11 601-545-1225
Tracy Graves The FORUM 138/39 206-565-1476
Echo-Mail is one of the most effective means of mass-
communications brought to light this century, let's USE it!
This has been an enjoyable week for me. I've been busy
catching up on some of the Usenet conferences and have come
across some interesting things. One of them is the source code
for valspeak, more on that later. This column's going to be a
little different. I'm going to stick my neck out and get up on a
soapbox for a few paragraphs. Those of you who don't care to read
these sections can merely skip the section starting with
"[Soapbox ON]" until you see the "[Soapbox OFF]." I've decided
that not enough people are talking, and I'm getting kind of tired
with the knee-jerk reactions taking place in the network.
-- Usenet and FidoNet --
While I was going over some of the conferences on Usenet, I
discovered a new one in progress. It dealt with how to connect
FidoNet and Usenet together. This wasn't too surprising as I knew
it was beginning to be done by people like Bob Hartman who were
familiar with both of these public networks (okay, so Usenet
isn't quite as public as FidoNet). What was surprising to me is
how active the conference seemed to be. There are quite a few
people on Usenet who are seriously thinking about or working on
gateway software to link these two fine networks. The problem
that I saw was that a good number of them were totally unfamiliar
with the Fido or SEAdog conventions of mail. If we don't start
working on much the same thing here, we may find ourselves shut
out of easy Usenet gateways because Usenet has decided how they
will accept a Fido, and Fido isn't going to like the methods
involved. I'd like to think that anyone out there involved with
FidoNet and Usenet is going to try and make sure that the gateway
will be something relatively easy to implement, and is a little
more relaxed than what Usenet seems to prefer. I say this because
I've glanced at some Usenet technical type stuff and became
hopelessly lost after the first few pages.
It also wouldn't be to convenient if our PCs had to handle a
full Usenet feed, because it isn't unusual for Usenet to transfer
2 megabytes of data a day. My local Usenet site has a dedicated
line to one of their sources for news, and I don't know of many
PCs that could do that very easily. I'd like to hear from anyone
out there in FidoNet who is working with the Usenet people on
developing a practical gateway between the networks. This is not
downplaying Bob Hartman's current gateway by any means. I just
happen to be a little lazy and would like to see some gateway
software that nearly anyone could implement with a willing Usenet
site coordinator.
-- Valspeak and LEX --
FidoNews 4-18 Page 12 11 May 1987
While on Usenet I came across the source code for Valspeak.
If you've never heard of it, it converts an ASCII text file in
"English" into something a little different. How different?
Suffice to say that your old high school English teacher would
have a heart attack if he saw the final result ("the" becomes
"thuh," "yes" becomes "fer shure," etc.). I'd heard of the
program several months back (on Usenet) but had missed the
posting of the source code.
In looking over the source code I found out that I'd need a
program called LEX as well a C compiler. After a few days
searching I found a version of LEX on Gee Wong's board (thanks
for allowing file requests Gee). My only problem seems to be that
the LEX I have, isn't quite compatible with the LEX that was used
on the posted Valspeak. This meant I actually had to go look at
the documentation on LEX and learn what it did. LEX is a "Lexical
Analyzer Generator" which means that it writes a program that
analyzes (and can convert or translate) an ASCII file. It seems
to be very powerful in that it could be used to help you convert
source code from one language to another, maybe even do a very
basic translation between two spoken languages although I don't
think it would be that good of a translation. I've almost got the
LEX I'm using to accept the source code for valspeak, after which
I should merely have to compile a C program.
If this sounds a little complicated or time consuming,
that's because it is! Even after I get my LEX to generate
(hopefully) a C program, there's no assurance that my C compiler
will be able to accept the generated code. While I've only come
across one program off Usenet that Microsoft C 4.0 didn't like
(JOVE), the docs on the LEX I'm using seem to indicate that it
generates code for one of the PC versions of C. If the PC version
doesn't correspond to the latest MSC conventions it will be
necessary to modify the generated C code to get a working
valspeak. There was a similar program called jivespeak that I've
seen on a few local bulletin boards, I'd like to hear from anyone
who has done such a conversion. I'd especially like to hear any
hints on how to do this, or where I could get a more UNIX like
LEX. As I write this an idea just popped into my head, I could
run LEX on the UNIX machine I have access to and bring the C code
down to the PC and compile it there. I'll let you know how that
approach works out next week, as there's bound to be more
programs like this floating around and this may be an easier way
to port them to our PCs.
-- [Soapbox ON] --
Last chance to avoid my preaching, those who continue are
going to be stuck listening to my opinionated views on several
topics.
For over a year we've all been hearing about IFNA
(International FidoNet Association). Last August there was a
meeting in Colorado Springs which started the ball rolling
towards incorporating IFNA as a non-profit corporation. Many of
us had noticed little things about IFNA for some time (the
FidoNews 4-18 Page 13 11 May 1987
copyright on the nodelist for example). Well, Colorado Springs
didn't turn out quite as well as anticipated. I am not going to
start pointing fingers here as to whose fault that was, I wasn't
there and have only heard about what happened second hand from
Phil Ardussi, my net host, and what people have written in the
echomail conferences and FidoNews. Suffice to say that it came
close to being a disaster from what I've heard. This isn't all
the fault of the organizers either. Some of the problems stemmed
from a few hot-headed people who attended the conference. Well,
many of us have seen a whole slew of messages in the echo
conferences on IFNA. I've gotten a little tired of some of the
stuff I've been seeing and decided it was time to get some of it
off my chest.
First off there was a vote taken on the bylaws. Granted the
current bylaws are not perfect, but is anything? The bylaws give
us a starting point from which we can work. Without some
beginning "rules" absolutely nothing can be done. How could you
start writing a program if you didn't even know what language it
was going to be used? (I refer to actual coding, not breaking
down the task into reasonable parts.) There were over one
thousand people entitled to vote on the bylaws, yet less than one
fifth actually took the time to vote. The bylaws were published
weeks ahead of time in FidoNews. The week after OUR newsletter
was filled with discussion on the proposed bylaws. Thom Henderson
even went to a lot of extra effort to make it very easy for
people to comment on the bylaws. There was no need to have read
the article specifications document, and it isn't that difficult
to adhere to those specs. All you had to do was send a normal
netmail message to 1/1, and Thom put a notice to this is the
FidoNews that was almost dedicated to the proposed bylaws. In net
157, we spent a better part of our monthly meeting discussing the
bylaws. After much discussion (in the next edition of FidoNews
and a lot in the echo conferences) a modified set of bylaws was
printed in FidoNews. When it seemed that these proposed bylaws
would be reasonably acceptable a vote was called. In every
FidoNews after that, there was a notice and a ballot for the
expressed purpose of voting the acceptance of the bylaws for
IFNA. If the bylaws had been voted down, the bylaws committee
would have gone back to the drawing board and made any changes
they felt would be necessary to gain the majority acceptance of
the bylaws.
Out of over one thousand people eligible to vote on the
bylaws, less than one fifth of them actually voted. It seems that
taking a few minutes to read the bylaws, consider them, fill out
the ballot and send it in was too much for many. I wouldn't think
it was the cost of mailing it, one stamp is fairly cheap. Even
overseas rates on a one page letter isn't that much. Yet hundreds
of people decided not to vote. When you don't vote, you toss
yourself on the mercy of those who do vote (and their decision).
Voting is one of the highest levels of authority you have in an
organization, it is your duty to wield that authority
responsibly. If you don't, you have to be willing to accept the
decision made by your peers. If the results aren't what you'd
prefer, even if you did vote, you have to be willing to TRUST the
FidoNews 4-18 Page 14 11 May 1987
decision of the majority of your peers and abide by the GROUPS
decision. I realize that there is a strong possibility of one net
not knowing about the vote being taken due to a changeover in
hosts or something, but even if that entire network had voted
against the bylaws the end result would have been the same. The
vote for the bylaws was passed by an overwhelming margin. As it
was the responsibility for everyone eligible to consider the
bylaws and vote on them, it is now everyone's duty to accept that
decision and work TOGETHER for a better set of bylaws.
I have "heard" several people talk about IFNANET. There is
no such beast. It has been stated repeatedly that you DO NOT have
to belong (and never will have to belong) to IFNA to be listed in
the nodelist. All it takes to be listed in the nodelist is some
small proof that you are indeed running the software necessary to
communicate with everyone else in the network, and be running
that software at the required times. The only absolute throughout
the network is the national mail hour, which is only necessary
for a public node (special arrangements can always be arranged
for a private node). In each net (or region) it is up to the host
to decide if any extra mail events are needed and everyone in
that net would comply with the host. In Net 157, we've been
talking over the idea of several mail events to speed up mail and
everyone is involved in the discussion. I don't know how it works
in other nets, but here we discuss things rationally and come to
a mutual decision. Some people may not care for the decision, but
everyone abides by it. IFNA does not "govern" our net, it merely
assures our continuity.
The guidelines for governing the network are found in
POLICY3.DOC, which is merely a revisal of POLICY2.DOC, etc. This
document has remained almost unchanged since it's creation. The
changes that have been made are to help make all of us in FidoNet
(sysops and users) more a single group instead of a mob. The two
basic rules are simple: 1) Do not excessively annoy and 2) Do not
be easily annoyed. I read it as don't be a real pain to anyone
else in the network and be tolerant of other people's ideas,
opinions, and beliefs (these rules are very easy to live with).
If you want to be a region host or net host, it gets a
little harder. You become responsible for distributing the
nodelist to everyone in your net. Net hosts have the additional
duty of distributing FidoNews to the net. This isn't to punish
anyone, it's because FidoNews helps bind us into that group (not
a bunch of sysops and BBS users, but people with FidoNet). It
even provides a way for you to air a grievance, and that method
hasn't changed one iota in a long time.
Next up is the copyright issue. Everything I've been able to
find out on the nodelist copyright makes me wonder why anyone is
complaining about it. At one time there was an individual who
started selling the nodelist as an "official list" of bulletin
boards in the US. The people who were creating the master
nodelist found out about it and didn't feel it was right for an
individual to sell the work of others for a profit. The copyright
may not have stopped whoever was selling it, but it certainly
FidoNews 4-18 Page 15 11 May 1987
made him think twice about it! Copyright violations are a very
serious issue in the courts. Look through some recent PC
magazines (PC Magazine and BYTE come to mind) and you'll find
some companies who offer a "service" to any institution. They
come in to your offices and educate your people on why you DO NOT
copy software, that those copyright notices ARE VERY IMPORTANT!
Fines on these type of things can run very high, plus there's the
possible civil lawsuits that can result as well. It's like how
college professors impress upon you how important it is not to
commit plagiarism. It also serves the purpose of making the
nodelist belong to every person in it.
Because IFNA really is the network of members and non-
members. Even if you don't pay any dues and aren't able to vote,
IFNA does affect you. Just like the POLICY?.DOC affect you, so
does IFNA. It formalizes what we've been doing all along, adding
what the government requires for recognizing a formal
organization. Since it's a non-profit corporation, many companies
will be willing to make special offers to IFNA members. Without
an official organization, companies won't look twice at you. You
aren't a group, you're a disorganized mob! IFNA tells people that
we are not a mob, we're an organized group of people with some
common goals.
Now comes the copyright that has appeared in FidoNews. The
bylaws stated that there would be a method of distributing news
to all paid members and associates, and it would be in a weekly
newsletter called FidoNews. It would distribute information that
would be useful to its' members. It also means that it would make
non-members who qualify for membership aware of what was going on
in the network. While this isn't officially stated, I think it
follows fairly well that it would serve this purpose as well.
As an example suppose you were staring up a new echomail
conference that you thought would be of interest to many people.
You could enter a message about it in a current echomail
conference, but not everyone receives echomail or has the time to
read all of it. You could send a netmail message to everyone in
the network, but that would be extremely costly to say the least.
You could also send a message to every host and ask them to
forward the message on to their nodes. This would be less
expensive, but you could never be sure that the message reached
everyone (you can't demand that someone forward a message).
FidoNews however would make your task very easy, all you have to
do is send ONE message to 1/1 (in accordance with the ARTSPEC.DOC
file) and within a week or two everyone would know about the new
echomail conference. Because everyone is supposed to read
FidoNews, it contains information for everyone (once again sysops
AND users).
IFNA is promising that FidoNews will continue to be
published, and is promising that someone in IFNA will always take
on the responsibilities of the editor for FidoNews (keeping a
board up to receive submissions, and making sure it's put
together every week). Considering the amount of work that they're
guaranteeing, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to put a
FidoNews 4-18 Page 16 11 May 1987
copyright notice on it. If FidoNews was only distributed to paid
IFNA members, I would be one of the first to object. But it
isn't! Anyone may distribute it provided they do not charge for
it (or at least, not make any money by selling it). I would like
see an amendment to the bylaws that would assure it's being
continued in it's current state, which means anything is
published that reaches Thom.
The copyright also protects anyone who submits an article to
FidoNews from a lawsuit. If I were to make a serious mistake in
reviewing a product and my error were to cause a major decline in
it's sales, I wouldn't necessarily be put in the poorhouse
because of it. That copyright notice would help protect me (and
anyone else who had something published in FidoNews). While I
would be hard put to find an example as serious as I stated, it
does reassure me that I'm not out there all alone!
I do think, however, that some things should be censored out
of FidoNews. If someone were to write an article which was
deliberately slanderous, I would like to think that the editor
would refuse to print it. The same would go for anything that is
simple name calling or childish. As for who decides what goes
beyond the bounds, it's simple. You make someone who the majority
trusts the editor, and then let the person do it. If you don't
trust the current editor, find someone you do trust or volunteer
to do it yourself. If the majority picks someone you don't care
for, learn to live with it because an organization is designed to
make as many people happy as possible, not everyone. I fully
trust the current editor, and would like to seem him stay on as
long as possible. If in the future, FidoNews gets a new editor I
will be continue writing. If a majority of the people (in IFNA,
that organization that works to keep the network together) decide
on a new editor, I will happily live with their decision.
IFNA is not FidoNet, and FidoNet is not IFNA. FidoNet is the
network as a being, the multitude of bulletin boards, sysops, and
users who find something worthwhile in telecommunications in
general, and in the advantages of Fido/OPUS/SEAdog/etc. in
specific. IFNA is the nonprofit organization that is composed of
those people who are willing to go the extra ten yards for the
network. They believe that there is something good (and not for
making money) in the network and want to see its' continued
existence. If this means giving up a few hours a week (in
addition to the work involved in running a board) to create a
nodelist or newsletter, or attend a meeting (perhaps far away)
they do it. They don't sit back in their homes or offices and
write rude or insulting messages, they work with everyone to make
sure that people who DO write rude or insulting messages don't
destroy the network, which is something they believe in!
Anyway...'Nuff said on this for now.
-- Winding Down --
Game of the week this time is The Ancient Art of War
(Broderbund, list price $44.95). It's quite a bit like the
FidoNews 4-18 Page 17 11 May 1987
strategy board games I played many years ago, only with the new
twists of the using the computer. It's also nice because I don't
have to spend several hours trying to find someone who feels like
playing! It is not copy protected and includes several scenarios
as well as a generator for your own scenarios. You're offered the
chance to fight against several different opponents, from the
easy to beat "Crazy Ivan" to a man who almost wrote the book on
strategy, Sun Tzu. I've become fairly proficient in Sherwood
forest by practicing some "guerilla warfare" and have also
"mastered" the war of attrition (when you start off with 2 big
armies and end up with half a dozen men total). The are a wide
variety of options you can change with each game (where does food
come from, new trainees, supply lines, etc.) to make each game
either easier or harder than Broderbund's defaults.
I was going to recommend Silent Service (Microprose) for the
PC (I used to play it a lot on a friend's Commodore 64) but have
been unable to get this copy protected game to load on my
machine. I suspect it's the NEC V20 I have installed. I'd
appreciate it if anyone could confirm this problem with
Microprose's copy protection (I've yet to run into a problem with
well written copy protect schemes or non-copy protected
programs).
I have been to busy to go look over any new books this week,
although I did buy several. Hopefully I'll have looked them over
by next week. In the meantime I'd like to hear from some of you,
either by sending me mail or from an article written for
FidoNews. Below you'll find my uucp "address," FidoNet net/node
number, and US Mail address. Netmail to me should be routed
through 157/1, 157/502, or 157/0 (preferably 157/1 as I hit it
more often each day). All these nodes are running SEAdog 4.0, so
you shouldn't have to worry about mail schedules. They are also
willing to forward a file to me. If you have your own favorite
programs, I'd like to know about them (and tell everyone else
about them if I think it's good as well). In the meantime, see
you on the network.
Dale Lovell
3266 Vezber Drive
Seven Hills, OH 44131
24 May 1987
Metro-Fire Fido's Second Birthday BlowOut and Floppy Disk
Throwing Tournament! All Fido Sysops and Families Invited!
Contact Christopher Baker at 135/14 for more information.
SEAdogs may GET more information by requesting FPICMAP.ARC
from 135/14.
20 Aug 1987
Start of the Fourth International FidoNet Conference, to be
held at the Radisson Mark Plaza Hotel in Alexandria, VA.
Contact Brian Hughes at 109/634 for more information. This is
FidoNet's big annual get-together, and is your chance to meet
all the people you've been talking with all this time. We're
hoping to see you there!
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1/1.
Bob Morris 141/333
Chairman, Elections and Nominations Committee
The next two pages are your Official ballot for the Election of
the IFNA Board of Directors. The following are the few rules
which must prevail in this election:
1. You must send a legible copy of this ballot to the address
listed on the ballot. It must be signed and bear your
net/node number.
2. You may vote for any one person in your region for the
position of Regional Director. This vote is to be cast in the
LEFT column of the ballot.
3. You may vote for any eleven people in any regions for the
position of Director at Large. These votes are to be cast in
the RIGHT column of the ballot.
4. Voting will continue until the end of registration at the
Conference in August. The results will be read during the
opening of the business meeting on the first day of the
conference.
5. Write-in Votes will be accepted and are requested during this
election.
FidoNews 4-18 Page 20 11 May 1987
IFNA Board Of Directors
Ballot
Regional At Large
Region 10:
Steve Jordan _________ ________
Region 11:
Ryugen Fisher _________ ________
Theodore Polczynski _________ ________
Region 12:
Region 13:
Don Daniels _________ ________
John Penberthy _________ ________
Thom Henderson _________ ________
Gee Wong _________ ________
Brian Hughes _________ ________
Region 14:
Ben Baker _________ ________
Ken Kaplan _________ ________
Brad Hicks _________ ________
Region 15:
David Dodell _________ ________
Larry Wall _________ ________
Region 16:
Bob Hartman _________ ________
Hal Duprie _________ ________
Region 17:
Rob Barker _________ ________
Randy Bush _________ ________
Bob Swift _________ ________
Region 18:
Ken Shackelford _________ ________
Wes Cowley _________ ________
FidoNews 4-18 Page 21 11 May 1987
Region 19:
Mark Grennan _________ ________
Wynn Wagner _________ ________
Name ______________________________ Net/Node ___________
Signature______________________________ Date ___________
Please complete this and mail it to:
Robert Morris
IFNA Elections Committee
210 Church Street
West Haven, Ct. 06516
or bring it with you when you come to the conference in August.
These ballots will be counted by myself since with 200 members
the charges for a CPA would be very high. Hard copies will be
made available to anyone wishing to insure that their vote was
included.
