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 1:1/1.
Copyright 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 at (314) 576-4067.
The contents of the articles contained here are not our
responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them.
Everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING
received.
SEASON'S GREETINGS
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
Swan Song ................................................ 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
Modem, Modem, whose got the Modem? ....................... 2
A Storm Is On The Horizon ................................ 7
The Other Side of MetroNet ............................... 11
3. NOTICES .................................................. 14
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 14
Latest Software Versions ................................. 14
FidoNews 4-48 Page 1 28 Dec 1987
I've always been big on giving out free advice. Some would call
that a shortcoming, but at least I occasionally take my own
advice.
I remember in particular one company I used to work for. Every
week they had a staff meeting I was required to go to, and every
week the head of the company would encourage anyone who had any
criticisms to stand up and speak his peace. Never having learned
to be especially diplomatic (I was once told that I had the tact
and subtlety of a Sherman tank), I would take him at his word and
speak out.
This had several unfortunate side effects, one of which was that
disgruntled employees started standing around my desk complaining
about how awful things were. They would be surprised to discover
that I wasn't very sympathetic. I generally told them that, if
things were all that intolerable, then they should quit and go
somewhere else.
Then the day came where something happened that I found
intolerable. Within the hour my letter of resignation was on my
supervisor's desk and I was out the door. I've never had cause
to regret that.
What does all this have to do with FidoNet? Patience, I'm
getting to that.
Quite some time ago (more time than I care to think about,
actually) Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker roped me into helping them
figure out how to run this net. This was before we made it
democratic, so there wasn't a whole lot in the way of feedback.
We worked under the premise that if anyone was really unhappy
with what we were doing, they'd leave and form their own net.
So once again it's time for me to take my own advice. For a
number of reasons I'm unhappy about how things are going these
days, so I'm leaving to help form a new net. This will be my
last issue of FidoNews. Dale Lovell will be taking over as the
FidoNews publisher starting next week.
To all of you who have been supportive for lo these many moons,
you have my sincere and heartfelt thanks. To all the rest, no
hard feelings. Best of luck to all of you. By and large, it's
been fun.
Bob Morris, Co-Chair, FTSC High-Speed Modem Committee
16/0
After three months of testing, it is finally out, at least for a
couple of manufacturers we, the committee, have tested the name
brands with more to come.
If you had thought that we were going to recommend a modem, well,
you will have to make your own decision! As a committee we have
decided that we would undertake this task with you, the sysop and
user in mind. As such, we will not be making a decision as to
what should be or should not be a "Standard" for the FidoNet
community. What we have done is to evaluate these modems "Out of
the Box" so that we would do a equal comparison of what happens
when you get the boxes yourselves.
As of this writing, we have looked at and tested the Telebit
Trailblazer, the Microcom AX9624c, the Hayes V-Series 9600 and
the US Robotics HST with MNP 5. We have also started to look at
the Ven-Tel Pathfinder 18K modem, which is compatible with the
Trailblazer and is the only other modem on the market that is
compatible with any of the other brands at high speed.
The testing on the Hayes, Robotics and Ven-Tel is basically
unfinished at this time, but we thought that it was time to at
least report on what we have found to date. The prices for the
modems vary from the HST at $495.00 to $672.50 for the
Trailblazer modem. Additionally, we have not yet tested the
Trailblazer Plus within the Fido Compatible software available,
nor were we able to bring into our testing a copy of Fido V 12,
but we will assume that it is compatible with the current
software versions in use today.
Many of the manufacturers have been more than willing to assist
us in this endeavor and have contacted us to insure that the
products we had were operating properly. We must state at this
time that the V.29 "Standard" which exists today is not a true
data communications standard but one which exists for FAX
machines and the transmission of data for those pieces of
equipment. The high speed modem standard will probably be based
upon the V.32 standard under which we can probably expect that
all of the manufacturers will have equipment which talks to one
another at high speed. All modems tested talked to other brands
at at least 2400 BPS. Data transmission to locations outside of
the Continental United States were tested and the modem which
communicated the best via high speed using a registered data jack
and a "Data Line" was the Trailblazer, which obtained 815 CPS to
Australia. However, this modem is fairly well distributed
overseas and has been accepted, as the V.29 standard, in a number
of countries outside of the United States.
It is important to note that owners of systems which are based
FidoNews 4-48 Page 3 28 Dec 1987
upon the 8088 which run on an original clock speed of 4.77 MHz
should be aware that a problem does exist when attempting to
utilize these modems above 9600 bps. According to most of the
documentation available at the time, the data bus cannot handle
sustained speeds of 9600 or greater. This would limit the speed
of the modem, but XT and XT Clone owners can expect between 3600
and 9600 BPS, AT owners can expect between 7200 and 13000 when
using systems equipped with the 16450 UART and machine speeds of
at least 6 MHz when dealing with archived data as is found in
Echomail and file transfers of Archived data.
There is a new term which is CPS, which is the character
throughput with these new modems. CPS, simply stated, is the
character count expressed as actual characters (10bits = 1
Character). Therefore if throughput is expressed as 1320 CPS,
then the actual throughput (in old and familiar terms) is 13200
BPS.
The following is a report dealing with the Microcom AX9624c and
the Telebit Trailblazer. Both of these modems operated on both
the AT&T PC6300 Plus and an ARC Turbo AT Clone, both of these
machines worked in different environments, the AT&T utilized
SEADog 4.1 as the communications program and operates at 6MHz
utilizing the 8250 UART. The ARC Turbo AT utilized OPUS 1.03a as
both the BBS program as well as the mailer, this AT uses the
16450 UART and an 8MHz clock.
The Microcom was equipped with the current version of the
Firmware (ROM Version 1.6) and the Telebit was equipped with
their current version (Rom Version 3.00).
The Microcom utilizes MNP Class 6 as a form of error correction,
but the Microcom's implementation appears to be less tolerant of
noisy Central Offices, weather changes and long distance
connections. If utilized within a one hundred (100) mile radius
the modem appears to communicate reliably with another Microcom
of the same type. Technical support is available for the
product, but this support is somewhat onesided, when called about
a problem, they do not appear to have the desire to call back
with a solution if one is found. On two occasions I have had to
make calls to obtain the answer to a question which was given to
them. They have stated that the modem works best when "No
Protocol" is used to transmit the data. This would require Opus,
Seadog, BinkleyTerm and presumably Fido Version 12 to provide for
this modem and develop some sort of protocol when talking to
another Microcom. Users of this modem will notice that the modem
must be sent the dialing string twice in order for it to actually
dial the number. It also appears to be slower to respond to
commands issued from the keyboard (Opus' "K" command for
example).
The Trailblazer works directly out of the box, just like the
Microcom, but requires a different type of setup string, in that
Telebit utilizes internal switches instead of the more
recognizable commands. The Trailblazer appears to talk well in
almost every situation, yet to be tested is the super long
FidoNews 4-48 Page 4 28 Dec 1987
distance communication to a super noisy central office
environment. The physical size of this modem is larger than the
Microcom but also provided is a fan for cooling and an on/off
switch. The options, once written into the memory of the machine
remain there until changed by the Sysop. This modem works in
both the Opus and SEAdog environments and it is assumed to also
work in the Fido Version 12 environment. Technical support was
not used during the first 120 days of the test but additional
data will be attached to the next report if it is utilized.
Modem set-up for the Telebit Trailblazer and the Ven-Tel
Pathfinder 18K are as follows:
Note: Pathfinder settings differ a bit. Set S09=3, S53=4 and
S64=1 when using Binkley Term.
SEAdog Init Strings (4.1) Modem (Type Not used)
MODEM COM1
Modem Lock 19200 OR 9600 FOR XT'S
Modem Init AT E1 V1 X1 S0=1 S7=50
Modem Reset AT S0=0
OPUS 1.03a
Modem Init ~|AT E1 V1 X1 S0=1 S7=55|
config.sys entry
DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,19200 FOR AT CLASS MACHINES
-or-
DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,9600 FOR XT CLASS MACHINES
The Microcom AX9624c has external switches which must be set
before the modem is placed on line. The rear switch bank
contains 8 switches, all switches must be up except for switches
3 and 7. On the front panel, switches 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are up
with the others (2, 3, 4, 5 and 8) are down. Additionally, the
A/S switch must be released and in an out position.
The Init strings for the Microcom is as follows:
SEAdog 4.1
FidoNews 4-48 Page 5 28 Dec 1987
MODEM H24
MODEM COM1
MODEM BAUD 19200 OR 9600 FOR XT SYSTEMS
MODEM SETUP AT H0 M0 E0 X4 V1 Q0 S0=1 S7=55 \V1 \Q0 \X0 \N3 %C1 \J0
MODEM RESET ATZ
DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,19200 FOR AT'S
-or-
DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,9600 FOR XT'S
The Hayes V-Series 9600 Modem was then tested by the committee
and was found to be able to communicate with another Hayes V-
Series 9600 in either an Opus to Opus or an Opus to Seadog or
Seadog to Seadog envirnoment. Throughput on this modem, using
standard Echomail packets did not exceed 628 CPS, but when used
in a standalone environment, file transfers did approach 800 CPS
when using ZModem protocol for file up/downloads. The set up
used on this modem is the same one as found in the OPUS.CTL file.
It is important to note that although this modem gave the lowest
average transfer rates, the representatives from Hayes are
continuing to work with the committee to evaluate the setting
utilized and attempt to isolate the problem. There will be
furthur testing on this modem, providing that Hayes will allow us
to have access to the modem in the future. Until that time, we
will simply state that the modem does work in all of the current
environments in use today.
The committee also obtained two of the new US Robotics HST modems
equipped with the MNP 5 programming. To date our testing has
shown that when tranferring data from one of these new modems to
a "Old Style" HST, the new modems do not appear to be downwardly
compatible with the older modems. These modems when talking to
another MNP5 modem become very sensitive when using either XModem
or similiar protocols. As the tests are not completed at this
time for these new modems the report on this modem will be
forwarded at the time that the tests are completed.
It is important to note that in almost all cases, when dealing
with a modem which utilizes MNP Protocol 4, 5 or 6 that there
appears to occur a condition in which the modem to modem link
becomes questionable to the modems themselves and causes major
problems when using protocols which utilize error corrction
routines, such as XModem, since it appears that the two error
checking routines clash with one another. This clash appears to
cause a loss in data transfer rates from 35-60% of the rated
speed of the interface (UART).
The committee is also evaluating the Ven-Tel Pathfinder 18K modem
FidoNews 4-48 Page 6 28 Dec 1987
for use within our environment. The Pathfinder also uses PEP,
Packetized Ensemble Protocol like the Trailblazer, and it's major
positive attractions are the smaller size and the setup which
duplicates the Trailblazer.
In discussions with the Regional Manager from Microcom, there
appears to be some inconsistancies when dealing with protocols
which within themselves provide for error checking. This is
evidenced by the lower transfer rates using Xmodem type protocols
and the higher transfer rates under YModem or IModem. This
particular company has stated that they are planning on offering
a PROM change which will allow high speed without MNP 4, 5 or 6.
From all of the conversations that we have seen, both in EchoMail
areas as well as in Private NetMail, there has been a lot of
discussion concerning which modem if any should be selected as a
standard for high speed data transmission. It doubtful that any
of the manufacturers, except for Telebit, have the capacity
available to them within the existing modems to duplicate the
protocols of any of the other brands currently in the
marketplace. It is felt that at the current V.29 standard there
will exist no one standard, therefore the battle for marketshare
will be made by price alone and not by the technology itself.
The V.32 standard, however, will force each of the manufacturers
to adopt one standard for High Speed data communications and will
force the standard as it will be an International Standard for
all manufacturers and not open to interpretation by each of the
modem manufacturers. Until that happens, it is doubtful that any
one manufacturer will be able to capture more than a percentage
of the market.
Anyone wishing to forward their comments may do so to me at 16/0
or 16/2.
This is a copy of an open echo mail message I received on
12/14/87. My reply to this message is also here. I think everyone
should read both of these and send comments as soon as possible.
This could have a drastic effect on our Net, and we need input
(good or bad) from EVERY Sysop in the Net as soon as possible.
Date: 12-12-87 19:13
From: David Hart
To: William Bertholff
Subj: AN OPEN MESSAGE
I feel obligated to comment on today's Sysop meeting which, in my
opinion, was nothing less than a fiasco.
On or about November 13, you asked us by netmail if we would be
interested in attending a Sysop meeting to explore forming a
Sysop Association. One month was adequate notice but the meeting
was not confirmed until about one week ago. At that time, you
sent the original respondents the files for the meeting including
an agenda, "proposed" articles of the Association and a statement
of ethics.
Though the entire Net 107 could be effected by these actions, you
chose to supply this material only to those individuals who
indicated an interest in attending. You have subsequently stated
that the files were posted at the IGATE (who would know and so
what?).
A few days ago, you and I spoke by telephone. Rather than discuss
any of the issues at hand we discussed the format of the meeting.
I thought that we both agreed that the format would be a forum to
openly discuss our views. I expressed my fears that the meeting
would become either autocratic or technocratic. You assured me
this would not be the case.
I arrived, as schedule at 12:00 noon.
You arrived, without apology, at 1:00 PM.
From the outset, you made it very clear that this was your
meeting. You stifled discussion. You yelled and screamed (like a
child) at cross talk.
Nevertheless you made no attempt to follow an agenda or do
anything in a democratic or in a professional manner.
Now I run a prosperous company. I have been the COO of a
$40,000,000 organization and I won't be subjected to your temper
tantrums.
During the first hour, in your absence, I spoke with the attorney
who you had hired (without anybody's consent). I was informed
FidoNews 4-48 Page 8 28 Dec 1987
that you had encumbered (without authorization) the association-
to-be to the tune of $2,500 which the lawyer had agreed to
discount to $700. I also learned that you instructed counsel
(without prior consent of anyone else) to form a FOR PROFIT
corporation.
From a tax and organizational standpoint this would be
preposterous but in true Bertholff style, ya' just did it! This
meant that my buy in would include assumption of YOUR structure
and YOUR legal fees.
Frankly, a better first step would have been to form the
association and then to have the association retain counsel and
draft by-laws in accordance with the wishes of the membership as
contrasted to the wishes of William.
During the "meeting" you presented and allowed some other people
to present their views for what the association could and should
be.
We differed in that YOU were suggesting that the association, by
natural process over time become net 107 (or visa versa). I
agreed and suggested that the association become the legal entity
formed by Net 107. I felt that your approach was deceptive to the
Net but you didn't want to hear it and wouldn't allow discussion.
We both know that, though this was not a net 107 meeting you were
attempting to form a legal entity that would control the net. You
admitted as much. Unfortunately, your way of doing things is
through self-egrandizing subterfuge.
You then asked that we agree to accept the by-laws which were
never discussed. You further suggested that we agree to meet
again in late February to elect officers.
I suggested that we form a steering committee to author a "Call
for Comment" of net 107 of the by-laws as you had drafted them
and that the steering committee draft revised by-laws based on
the input of the entire net.
These would then be presented for ratification in the February
meeting. No time would be lost but some of your power might be.
Others suggested that this might not be practical and that the
by-laws could "always be changed".
However I think some people lost sight of the fact that this
change would have to then be by 2/3 majority rather than a simple
majority. Therefor, it is possible that a minority could
effectively control the organization.
You then had the unmitigated gall to present the situation as
your way or no way. NO DISCUSSION, NO IDEAS, NO DISAGREEMENT;
King Bertholff. I tried to get my point across diplomatically and
inoffensively but you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.
At this point, you slammed a fist down on the table, had an
enormous temper tantrum and stormed out of the room. You behaved
FidoNews 4-48 Page 9 28 Dec 1987
like a 3 year old child who couldn't get his way. You asked those
who disagreed with your approach to leave and I did (strange form
of democracy).
I came prepared to join (check in wallet). I left with nothing.
I call for your immediate resignation as Network Host. If that
does not occur I will ask those who feel as I do to form a "more
perfect" network in this area!
Date: 12-14-87 10:33
From: Gene Coppola
To: David Hart
Subj: Re: AN OPEN MESSAGE
This is a reply to the echo mail about the meeting held Saturday.
I was at first in favor of this new association. Now I am not so
sure! Here are some of my concerns.
The first question I have is a simple one. I am a host/hub for a
private network (33 systems - Pace University) and have been
refused the use of certain software granted to other hubs/hosts
in the normal network. If 107 incorporates and becomes a FOR
PROFIT corporation will they lose the right to use some of IFNA's
software as well? If so, then this could be a problem.
The second question I have is regarding taxes. Stockholders in a
FOR PROFIT corp. must pay taxes on earnings, if I understand the
IRS laws on this matter? Also, who pays the corporation taxes,
etc; required by state law?
Third, what state will this corporation be started in?
Fourth, what protection if any will it grant a sysop from
liability resulting from, incorrect phone numbers, messages
containing information not normally public (unknown to sysop) and
other protections? And, does not IFNA provide these same
protections as well?
Fifth, as a FOR PROFIT corporation, does it not go against the
very reasons behind the initial formation of Fidonet?
Sixth, if a node currently in Net107 refuses to join the
corporation does he lose the right to use his hub, and the
resulting OGATE?
FidoNews 4-48 Page 10 28 Dec 1987
Seventh, by forming this corporation, will the resulting Net
still be included in the official "IFNA NODELIST"? Perhaps not,
we will have to see how IFNA will rule on this A comment from
IFNA would be nice if IFNA cares to make one on what effect it
would have.
Eighth, what costs would be involved both to the sysops who join,
and the sysops who don't join? Will the IGATE start charging to
handle incoming mail? Will the OGATE start charging to handle
outgoing mail? Will OTHER Nets charge to handle mail from 107
systems?
And last, since Net 107 is NOW IN EXISTENCE, I feel that any move
like this to organize should be made, by FIRST applying to the
Regional Coordinator for a NEW Net Number Assignment for the
corporation. I am sure there will be some people who WILL NOT
desire to join, so why inconvenience them? If people feel a need
to form a new corporation then they should break away and obtain
a new Net number for their group! There are plenty of people in
Net107 who can take over the various duties, if it comes to this!
I think this is a SERIOUS issue, that needs to be fully discussed
BEFORE anyone votes on this matter. Comments pro and con are
welcome from anyone interested!
That ends my reply. I am not saying that anything in the above
reply will come true. These are just questions I feel I need
answers to BEFORE I vote on this matter.
Apparently, the meeting of December 12th didn't satisfy everyone.
A message has been going around the net intended to explain the
events of that meeting in such a way as to color William
Bertholff as Hitler. Seeing as I also attended this meeting, I
thought another point of view might balance the net's perception
a bit better.
About a month or so prior to the meeting, Bill posted a net wide
invitation to all sysops. As a courtesy, I responded saying that
I doubted that I could manage to make it into NYC. Bill called me
voice and helped arrange a ride for me. Later, the meeting's
location was changed to New Brunswick and my commuting problem
vanished. Nonetheless, it should be noted that when I showed even
the slightest bit of interest, Bill responded, and responded in a
manner intended to solve those problems that stood between me and
my attendance.
At some point during the next few weeks, I received a call from
Bill notifying me that several files would be sent to my system.
He explained further that these files were the definitive
documents of a proposed BBS related organization and should be,
therefore, read carefully.
In other words, he was calling a meeting to show his peers the
work he had done and asking them to accept or reject it.
Granted, those that didn't respond to that invitation, may not
have had the background I did, but, considering the amount of
work such a task entails, I can surely understand making those
who showed interest the target of the work. Egos, being what
they are, and practicality, being what it is, often collide in
bruised self-interest. Most understand and make room for this
relationship; some don't and, in so doing, belittle all but
superhuman efforts.
The meeting was to start at 12 noon. Bill wasn't there at that
time so the lawyer retained by Bill opened the meeting. He
explained that:
1) he in no way represented any incumbrance to anyone in the
room,
2) only in the event the organization was accepted by the group
did he expect any payment at all,
3) he was willing to discount his fee for the sake of the
organization creation,
4) such and organization was necessary for numerous reasons (of
which he gave very good examples), and
5) related his background in law to verify his credentials.
FidoNews 4-48 Page 12 28 Dec 1987
Of the Sysops present (maybe 25 at the time, although the number
grew to over 40), two Sysops assumed a confrontational posture
asserting that Bill had no right to retain a lawyer for them, nor
did the lawyer have any right to incumber them. The lawyer simply
restated that no one was incumbered and that Bill alone had
retained him. Nonetheless, these two pressed the same questions
again and again. In fact, discussion was reduced to a three way
conversation to the exclusion of the rest of us.
At about 1pm Bill arrived. The anonymous message's author
maintains that he did so without apology. This is untrue. He
apologized about missing his train, and immediately got down to
business.
He began by asking everyone present to make some noncontroversial
changes to the articles and ethics standards. These changes were
culled over the preceding week from conversations with several
sysops. Largely these changes were inconsequential to the sense
of the document, save the change from 3 board members to 5. Next,
he explained the "big picture" (i. e., the why's and wherefore's
of such and organization). Then he opened the meeting to
questions from the floor.
During the question period, one of the two sysops that had
previously taken the lawyer to task, demanded that he be allowed
to make a statement. Bill reminded him that he was taking
questions at present, that there would be a time for comments
later. The sysop persisted, making asking question very difficult
in deed. Nonetheless, quite a few were asked, and Bill answered
them all candidly. Once the questions stopped, and after another
sysop announced that he supported the proposed organization (over
Bill's objections that he too was out of order, I might add), a
ten minute break was announced so that sysops could talk among
themselves. The break lasted 20 minutes and everyone exchanged
opinions.
The meeting reconvened, and the floor was opened for discussion.
The sysop that demanded to make a statement during the question
period, now demanded to ask questions. Once again this sysop
asserted that Bill had no right to do any of the things he had
done; that Bill had some how stolen everyone's rights. I think at
this point everyone was pretty fed up with the same questions,
the same accusations, the same "if-you-make-your-idea-MY-idea-
I'll-be-quiet", but order was the privilege of the chair. Bill
did attempt to call order any number of times, but this sysop
persisted in trying to assert his out-of-order questions.
Finally, Bill slammed his fist to the table and demanded order.
With that, a very small contingent of sysops walked out.
Thus the letter of complaint came to be.
In it the writer lays claim to superior business judgement by
stating that he runs his own organization and once was the CEO of
a $40,000,000 firm. I wish I could tell you how many times I
heard that at the meeting. I also run my own company and have
done so for more than 10 years; I think I can make business
FidoNews 4-48 Page 13 28 Dec 1987
decisions too, and most of mine have paid off just fine. I would
like to tell the writer of that message here and now that his
resume doesn't mean that "no one else can think". Besides, the
moderate successes that it reports seem to indicate a downhill
trend.
The letter also states that incorporating in NYC is the wrong
thing to do. I have my own opinion on this, but I do remember
this post-CEO of a $40,000,000 company proclaiming to the meeting
that he could offer NYC office space should the company be
incorporated there. It's interesting that now, once the post-CEO
of a $40,000,000 company walked out of the meeting, this has
become a bad idea altogether and proof of bad decision making.
Furthermore, the letter states that it is terrible that the
lawyer and Bill incumbered the organization-to-be. I sure would
like to know what the author expected. It seems to me, we
received the cheapest legal advice any of us are likely to get.
It also seems to me, the lawyer bent over backwards to be as
accommodating fee-wise as is humanly possible. If anything, I'd
say that Bill cut a mean deal, and that we should all be grateful
for it.
The author maintains that a FOR-PROFIT organization is
ridiculous, that it should be NONPROFIT organization. I'll really
have to check my facts here, but I believe there are far more
governmental regulations and red tape attached to nonprofit
organizations than there are to for-profit organizations.
Furthermore, the tax liability issue is easily managed by virtue
of the organization's ability to manage its profits. Once again,
it seems to me, the choice was a wise one.
The letter also mentioned that by buying into the organization,
one would also be buying into Bill's legal fees and
organizational structures. I never bought into anything that
didn't have overhead as a cost consideration. CEO's of
$40,000,000 companies usually deal with this concept daily. Be
that as it may, buying into the structure still remains. As far
as I can remember, I must have seen 100 different structures for
as many organizations. Most of them seem to work as long as the
people involved want them to. It's pretty obvious to me, overhead
and organizational structure aren't really the objections here;
rather they are skinned egos and self-importance.
All in all, I have to say I'm glad Bill took the bull by the
horns. For too long the net has been talking about the weather
but doing nothing about it. Now, that one of our members has
taken the initiative to do something about it, some seem to feel
cheated rather than gratified. Perhaps this is a natural feeling.
Bill's action has underscored the notion that other people have
good ideas too . . . with or without CEO approval.
1 Jan 1988
Genesis of the Intergalactic Sysop Alliance, and publication
of the first AlterNet node list.
9 Jan 1988
The next net 104 FidoNet Sysop Meeting. Contact Oscar Barlow
at 104/0 for information.
26 Jan 1988
Australia Day. Australia celebrates 200 years of colonization.
25 Aug 1988
(pending BoD approval) Start of the Fifth International
FidoNet Conference, to be held at the Drawbridge Inn in
Cincinnatti, OH. Contact Tim Sullivan at 108/62 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 1:1/1.
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications.
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
Address _________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
Country _________________________________________________________
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
US Funds to:
International FidoNet Association
c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA
700 Bishop Street, #1014
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-4112
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The first elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1987. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido
1:1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing
them directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee
Chairmen provide us with the latest versions of each
publication, but we can make no written guarantees.
System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____
SEAdog price as of March 1, 1987
ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member
Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $100.00 _____
Fido/FidoNet price as of November 1, 1987
ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member
International orders include $10.00 for
surface shipping or $20.00 for air shipping _____
SUBTOTAL _____
HI. Residents add 4.0 % Sales tax _____
TOTAL _____
SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN US FUNDS:
International FidoNet Association
c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA
700 Bishop Street, #1014
Honolulu, HI. 96813-4112
USA
