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 1988 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. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
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.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
OPUS Gazette Band Wagon! ................................. 1
An Open Letter To SEA .................................... 3
MORE STORAGE ON YOUR DISK DRIVE .......................... 5
Building the New Ark ..................................... 10
256k Chips Abound! ....................................... 12
A CONSULTANTS VIEW ....................................... 13
DOS and Don'ts: A Word Usage Complaint ................... 16
What Another Battle? ..................................... 18
QBTOOLS - A PROGRAMMER'S DREAM ........................... 19
QT/2 A Fantastic Computer At A Great Price ............... 20
SUPERLIB A Great User Library For Quick Basic 4.0 ........ 23
Survey Time Rolls Around Again! .......................... 24
And more!
FidoNews 5-42 Page 1 17 Oct 1988
OPUS Gazette Band Wagon!
Jake Hargrove
Fido 301/1
High Mesa Ranger's
Well here it is the first week of October, 1988. An I only
received two replies to the SysOp interviews submitted in the
Opus Gazette and Fido News. Don't know if it is me or if you
folks out there are not reading these two fine newsletters. I
felt kind of bad when I picked up this months Opus Gazette.
There were no articles in it, except the one from the Editor. So
here is what I reside to to. Effective with next months Issue I
plan on having at least one article in each of the Issues of the
OGZT. Or until you folks out there protest enough to make me
quit.
I have been hearing all the reports about 1.1, well I am
running 1.03b, and do not at this time relish the thought of
having to change over to 1.1. So to the developers, here is at
least one SysOp who Thanks you for taking your time and getting
things right. There are those of us out here who do not have
major problems with the OPUS BBS system, and as I said many many
Moons ago. Thanks Wynn!
I did do a NO NO a couple of weeks ago. I installed
ConfMail to run in conjunction with the OPUS. Not because I am
dissatisfied with PUREly OPUS, but because I wanted to see how
hard it would be to install, and I can tell all of you PUREly
OPus Sysop. If I can install ConfMail and have it run with No
problems so far so can the rest of you. An all this talk about
why the backbones are doing certain things kind of reminds me of
the months prior to the AlterNet institution. Sure there are
enough of US Opus BBS to start our OWN Net, but do we really want
to do that?
Do we want to cut our own throats? Many of us seem to
forget some of us do this for the FUN of it, and YES this is an
expensive hobby, and will get more expensive as it goes on. That
is why I say all of us should work at making the cost cheaper, vs
complaining about having rules enforced upon us. At least we do
not have to have a License to operate these things as some have
mentioned in the past. An I for one am grateful to the phone
company for not making policy with which I could surely not live.
This News Letter, has done it's thing once. I for one do
not want to see it happen again. I do get busy as many of us do
with other things in my life. But this hobby of mine takes up a
good bit of it, and right now is averaging over $100.00 each
month. Of course the wife no longer complains about the phone
bill when I throw her cigarette bill and books into the pile.
Anyway, it is just a Hobby or that is what I keep saying. It
just has not turned out to be as enjoyable as it use to be. So
FidoNews 5-42 Page 2 17 Oct 1988
if I do my little part in keeping the OPUS Gazette alive then I
guess I will be able to say I accomplished something this month.
What can you say you have done?
Joe Lindstrom
Farpoint Station (1:134/9999)
Calgary, AB, Canada (403)-248-9999
I've kinda sat back and washed all the stuff hit the fan (in
EchoMail in regards to the SEA vs PKware controversy. Issue 540
of FidoNews was, thankfully, a breath of fresh air. Now that I
know some facts, I'm willing to "take sides", but with a few
reservations.
I use both ARC and PKPAK/UNPAK here on my system. After
reading your article in Issue 540, I'm leaning towards favoring
ARC though. You stated the facts, and you promised that ARC may
be used without charge (though a contribution will be nice) by
non-commercial users now and in the future. I'm sure you'll
remain true to your word on this. However... the PKPAK and
PKUNPAK programs are FASTER, compress BETTER, and support some
features (like archive comments) that ARC does not.
I will continue to use PKPAK and PKUNPAK for now on my BBS,
though I do use ARC for EchoMail for compatibility sake. And
therein lies the rub: here we have ARC, the "industry standard",
which appears to me and to most others to be an inferior product
(as it relates to PK only, because ARC is really a very wonderful
product). After January 1st, we'll be back to ONE choice of
archiver.
I have so far resisted the temptation to send you a
contribution to ARC. Reason: I have only recently joined the
MS-DOS world. I used to run a C-128 based bulletin board. I
bought my XT compatible and jumped in right in the heat of
battle. There were TWO well-known and well-supporter archivers
and I was having to make a difficult choice. I instead took a
wait-and-see attitude, and I have now seen.
I will send my contribution when a couple of things happen.
First of all, I would like to see ARC perform FASTER. I realize
that's gonna be a little difficult, especially when it comes time
to upgrade ALL versions of ARC for different computers (machine
codes of course differ machine to machine), but it most certainly
can be done. Secondly, it must support newer, better compression
methods (such as SQUASH). Third, it should have all the bells
and whistles that PK had (file and archive comments, etc.), and
hopefully a few new ones you can dream up.
This is asking a lot of you. After all, you came up with
the first ARChiver, and you have already given a lot to us. But
like you pointed out, people have formed biased opinions AGAINST
you. To win the support back, and to truly solidify your
self-proclaimed position as "the industry standard", you must
continue to be competitive. The above steps are just the
beginning in an endless dogfight to stay at the top.
FidoNews 5-42 Page 4 17 Oct 1988
Thank you for an informative explanation of the events
leading up to and after the suit. Thank you for an excellent
utility that has saved millions of users everywhere a lot of
time, money, and storage space. And thank you for ARC 6.00 which
I know will come as a direct result of this message <grin>!
By the way, there is now a third-party ARC-compatible
archiver/dissolver available for the Commodore 128, which any 128
owners (or the folks at SEA) may want to check out. It comes in
a package called "CS-DOS" (written by Chris Smeets) and is
available for $30 from:
Ampere Metal
80 Hale Road, Unit 4
Brampton, ON, Canada
L6W 3M1
Everyone wants to be able to store more files on their disk
drives whether the drive is a floppy or hard disk drive. There
are several ways to obtain more storage, some using hardware
methods and some using software.
This article will cover several of the software methods available
to you at little or no cost. The two programs covered are ARC
produced by SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ASSOCIATES located in Wayne, New
Jersey and PKARC produced by PKWARE located in Glendale,
Wisconsin.
Both programs have been released as Shareware software. The
authors expect that you will pay a license fee if you continue
to use the software after a reasonable trial period.
The two programs take one or more files and produce one smaller
file. In some cases, the size of the resulting compressed file
can be drastically reduced in size. The compression routines
used in each program vary. The speed and resulting compressed
file size are determined by the compression method used by each
author.
ARC was released before PKARC but the latter is a definite
improvement in speed over ARC. The author of ARC releases the
source with ARC in case you desire to examine how the software
works. PKARC will read and operate on files produced by PKARC or
ARC. ARC will only operate on files it produces. Both software
packages have very good documentation and the command menus for
both programs can be seen by typing the program name at the DOS
prompt.
The results reported in this article were produced on a QT/2
which is an 80386 based 20 Mhz PS/2 compatible computer with 12
megabytes of RAM. A one megabyte RAM disk was created and all
operations were then performed in the RAM disk. I ran the tests
in the RAM disk to produce my results without the disk lag
associated with floppy or hard disk drives. The times reported
are the average of ten runs for each test reported. MS-DOS 3.2
was the operating system in use during the tests. The QT/2
memory speed is a quick 80ns.
I tested a variety of different file types and combinations of
files to see how each program handles different files. PKARC and
ARC were used for compression, PKXARC and ARCE for decompression.
CUBIT from Softlogic is also available and from past tests the
results have been poor. I could not include results from CUBIT
because the version of CUBIT I own will not run on my system and
Softlogic has refused to provide me with an updated version of
CUBIT that will run on an 80386 based system unless I purchase
the updated version. CUBIT is a Terminate And Stay Resident
program and takes user memory once loaded. The files it produces
are not compatible with ARC or PKARC software. It is also more
FidoNews 5-42 Page 6 17 Oct 1988
expensive than either of the Shareware packages.
Test 1 - Lotus 2.01 Worksheet
PKARC PKXARC ARC
ARCE
Compression Time 00:05:64 01:02:43
Decompression Time 00:04:03
00:34:00
Original Size 235962 235962
Compressed Size 43614 55845
Percentage 82 77
Test 2 - Lotus 2.01 System Disk
PKARC PKXARC ARC
ARCE
Compression Time 00:17:86 02:07:41
Decompression Time 00:09:43
00:14:04
Original Size 301878 301878
Compressed Size 259834 265521
Percentage 14 13
Test 3 - 60 Microsoft Object Files
PKARC PKXARC ARC
ARCE
Compression Time 00:07:06 00:22:16
Decompression Time 00:06:08
00:07:06
Original Size 44985 44985
Compressed Size 34030 34073
Percentage 25 25
Test 4 - Randomly Generated Text File
PKARC PKXARC ARC
ARCE
Compression Time 00:13:11 01:11:32
Decompression Time 00:05:01
00:08:73
Original Size 164001 164001
Compressed Size 127858 158243
Percentage 23 4
Test 5 - Text File Of All The Same Characters
FidoNews 5-42 Page 7 17 Oct 1988
PKARC PKXARC ARC
ARCE
Compression Time 00:03:36 00:12:79
Decompression Time 00:02:79
00:02:84
Original Size 164001 164001
Compressed Size 3010 363
Percentage 99 100
As you can see from the above chart, PKARC is consistently faster
than ARC when compressing a file. PKXARC is also faster than
ARCE when decompressing a file.
The average reduction in file size for the five tests is 48% for
PKARC and 43% for ARC. While the difference of 5% does not seem
like much, it does add up. The capacity of my hard drive is 110
megabytes. So the five percent advantage of using PKARC allows
me to store 5.5 megabytes more on my drive than if I used ARC to
compress my files.
The speed advantage of PKARC is the main factor however in my
choice between the two packages. However the author of PKARC
includes one more feature that I really like. You can create
self-extracting files with PKARC. This is great for people who
write software and wish to distribute it in this manner. Both
PKARC and ARC come from the authors in a self-extracting archive
file.
The versions of the software tested are the latest available at
the time this article was written. I used version 5.21 of ARC
and version 3.6 of PKARC which was released a few days ago and
contains major improvements over previous versions.
1. PKARC is now up to 25% faster. PKXARC is now up to
10% faster
2. You can add 3,095 files to an archive in one sweep.
3. Special limited-disk-size handling to enable the update of
archive files which are larger than 50% of your floppy disk
storage area.
4. Added flexibility to the MOVE option by combining it with
other update and freshen options.
5. A List Files feature has been added to further automate
the archiving & file reconstruction process.
6. Your choice of having PKARC stop when it encounters a "can't
find" file situation, or having it make a notation on the
screen and then proceeding to the next step.
7. Improved network support.
8. The addition of the MORE command for the PKARC verbose file
FidoNews 5-42 Page 8 17 Oct 1988
listing which provides pausing after each screen of
information.
9. The addition of the MORE command for PKXARC which provides
pausing after each screen of information during the
"extract file to the screen" process.
10. New printer options for PKXARC.
11. A new -n option which saves time by reconstructing only
the most recent version of the file to be extracted when
another same-named file already resides on your disk.
12. Additional information about the archiving process is
displayed which includes the version number and program.
Here is a small dictionary of file compression terms to help
explain some of the features of these software packages.
FILE COMPRESSION is the process of reducing a file's size.
Sometimes called ARCing or compressing.
FILE means the SINGLE name that identifies information on
your floppy disk or hard drive.
ARCHIVE FILE holds information that has been reduced in
size for better storage. Sometimes called an ARC or ARCed file.
An ARCHIVE FILE can be made up of either one big file OR
several files bunched together under one file name.
PKARC is upwardly compatible with all its own upgrades as
well as with most other file compression programs. You can UNarc
almost all of the archive files that have been created.
There may be times when you need to CREATE an archive that is
compatible to one which can be read by SEA's ARChiving program.
This means you will use less features to maintain compatibility.
C:>PKARC otc a OldFile.ARC *.*
___
|
This option, which IMMEDIATELY follows the program
name, will create an archive file that is compatible
with SEA's ARC.
If you have any further questions or comments about PKware
File Compression programs, contact:
PKware, Inc.
7032 Ardara Avenue
Glendale, WI 53209
"The land is being overtaken by the SEA and the cities are going
to the dogs, or perhaps the KATZ" -- attributed to Nostradomus
and Yogi Berra
Pardon my purple prose, but I'm tired of all the bickering. It
seems that one of the few things in FidoNet and the computer
hobby in general which is not getting smaller and faster is
debate. In the past few weeks I have read messages, had files
uploaded and seen FidoNews articles wailing about this or that
side of the PKWARE vs SEA suit. I have come to a conclusion on
the matter, which I quote from an old t-shirt: "Kill 'em all;
let God sort them out."
From the SEA side, I can understand the feeling. We have heard
all about the "family business", the piracy and the refusal by
Phil Katz to respond to simple requests. If Katz DID steal the
code from SEA, and then resell an enhanced version, then he
probably should be drawn and quartered and THEN sued.
I also understand the PKWARE side of the dilemma, with which
most average hobbyists sympathize. If SEA had done what Katz
did, writing a significantly better file compression system,
then the whole problem would never have been started.
I would propose dumping both of these systems and coming up with
the .ARK file. The .ARK file would employ the various
file compression methods which the .ARC file employs (and which,
if I am not mistaken, SEA did NOT originate). It would not be
compatible with the .ARC file, so that the .ARK author would not
be sued for conspiracy to commit efficiency. .ARK will be
considerably faster than PKARC, ARC, et al. In other words, it
and it's author will bury everybody else and remain militantly
FREE for the asking!
Lest anyone think that the term .ARK is simply a knock-off of
.ARC, it must be noted that .ARK refers to the Noah's Ark. What
more appropriate term could we find for something that would
house all of our miscellaneous files and carry them safely over
the sea (with all those catz -- er, cats -- swimming around)?
Am I serious? No. I certainly wouldn't trust a file
compression program that I wrote. I do trust both the SEA and
the PKWARE people! No one is served best when a superior
program is barred from the market. The primary reason for the
dynamic growth of the IBM compatible computer world is the
openness adopted by IBM from the outset. While Apple and others
twiddled about with proprietary secrets and closed
architectures, IBM opened the books completely, and while they
lost some potential profits as a result, they have gained
immensely more through their openness. If stuffy Big Blue can
be this open, why do shareware authors have to fight like cats
FidoNews 5-42 Page 11 17 Oct 1988
and (SEA)dogs?
(The author apologizes for the pun-ishment above. There I go
again!)
A steady source of quality 256k chips has finally emerged. We are
now in a position to supply 150ns 256k chips at the low price of
$7.50 per chip!
These chips are covered by our standard 12 month warranty against
manufacturing defects. Each and every chip has been tested and
found to be in proper working condition.
These prices are ONLY for FIDONET Sysops! If your system does not
appear in the current NODELIST then you are not eligible for
these prices.
Please note I said FIDONET Sysops only!. Not Alternet, not
Texasnet, not Southnet or any other net. If you do not belong
to FIDONET then you are not eligible for this special offer!
Contact me, Gene Coppola care of 1:107/200 for more details. As
of the date of this article we have 1500 hundred chips left. I
reserve the sole right to refuse any order, from anyone for any
reason.
Currently the best performance v.s price ratio is obtained
with the SUNTAC 80286 motherboard. This board operates at 4
speeds the lowest being 6 Mhz and the highest speed being
15 Mhz.
Four megabytes of RAM may be installed on the motherboard using
either 256k 100 n.s. chips or 1 megabit 100 n.s. chips. Memory
above 1024k (1 megabyte) is available as L.I.M. 4.0 memory.
The SUNTAC motherboard has two eight bit expansion slots and six
sixteen bit expansion slots. The board will operate either as a
one wait state system with 120 n.s. memory chips or a zero wait
state system with 100 n.s. memory chips installed. A
clock-calendar is installed on the board.
This board is compatible with PC-DOS, MS-DOS and OS/2. When using
PC-DOS you must use GWBASIC instead of IBM's BASICA due to
copyright restrictions.
The price of expansion memory chips is very high and no relief is
in sight in the near future. However the prices of the various
speeds of 256k memory chips are very close. To avoid having to
purchase memory in the future if systems are upgraded it is
suggested you obtain RAM chips with a minimum speed of 120 n.s.
at this time.
Once your system requires more memory the suggested option to
purchase would be an AST Rampage board. This board will serve you
very well in several ways.
1) Allows you to use Rampage memory as system memory.
You can backfill from 64k up with a Rampage board.
2) Allows you to expand your system with up to two
megabytes of E.E.M.S. memory which can be used by
many programs such as Lotus, dBase, Turbo Pascal,
SAS, word processors and network software.
3) Many multi-user programs such as Desqview, Windows
and Concurrent Dos recommend and run much better on
a Rampage board than any other board including
Intel's Aboveboard.
With the advent of the SUNTAC 80286 based motherboard I do not
recommend the purchase of a Turbo Speed Up board at this time.
The 80286 based motherboard can be purchased at a price equal to
and in some cases (Orchid Technology) at a much lower price than
a Turbo board. Some of the reasons for this decision are
explained below.
1) Turbo Speed Up boards do not in most cases increase
the data transfer rate between disk drives and the
processor. The SUNTAC motherboard uses a 16 bit bus
allowing much faster transfer rates.
FidoNews 5-42 Page 14 17 Oct 1988
2) A Turbo card will not increase the transfer rate of
either the serial or parallel ports. Again an 80286
based motherboard can make use of the 16 bit bus
which increases transfer rates.
3) OS/2 runs on only one of all the available Turbo
cards currently available. While OS/2 is not
currently in major use I feel it will be within your
expected equipment life.
4) Turbo boards create many problems due to the heat
generated by the high speed processor and memory on
the Turbo board.
5) Some EGA and many VGA display cards will not work
when Turbo boards have been installed.
Many of the computers I see still have the old 65 watt power
supply installed. For a PC with just two floppy drives, one
display card, and a printer card this is reasonable.
You must understand that once a system starts to expand with
hard drives, emulator boards and such, the power requirements
and cooling requirements increase very dramatically. More
problems are caused by the lack of proper cooling than any
other reason.
For a PC or XT I recommend a minimum of a 150 watt switching
power supply. For those of you with AT's I suggest a minimum
of 200 watts. Be sure than any power supply you purchase is
U.L. listed and approved.
For special situations there are Turbo Fans which increase the
cooling by a factor from 120% to 400% over standard power
supply/fan combinations.
I recommend either a Seagate 30 megabyte or Seagate 40 megabyte
hard drive. The 30 Mb would be for PC or XT systems and the 40 Mb
would be for AT systems. Both are self parking and have proved to
be very reliable in continued use.
Until PC-DOS 4.0 is bug free I recommend that PC-DOS 3.3 be used
on all systems. PC-DOS 3.3 is very stable at this point and
provides many features not available in previous DOS versions.
1) Increased environment and shell functions.
2) Decreased minimum file size. Previous versions of
DOS have a much larger block size when files are
saved.
3) Built in disk cache (type) functions.
4) Increased speed for hard drive data transfer rates.
5) Most network software will no longer work with 2.x
FidoNews 5-42 Page 15 17 Oct 1988
versions of PC-DOS. Many new and improved network
compatible functions have been included in PC-DOS
3.3 thus making it far superior to prior versions.
OS/2 has it's own place. However since a minimum of three to
four megabytes of memory and an 80286 based system is required
for OS/2 to be of any improvement over PC-DOS 3.3 I recommend
staying with DOS 3.3 for the time being.
When considering whether to invest in a network there are many
factors that must be considered before any purchases are made.
Here are a few of the many questions you must have answers for
before you make any purchases.
1) How many people will currently be accessing the
network? What are the current minimum and maximum
numbers?
2) How many people will be accessing the network within
the next twelve to eighteen months? What are the
minimum and maximum numbers for this period of time?
3) Will electronic mail between users be required
initially once the network is set up? If not, will
it be required in the future?
4) What type of software will you be loading into and
using on the network. Will the software be stored on
a server or will each work station have its own
software?
5) Are the versions of currently owned software network
compatible? If not, how much will it cost to upgrade
to versions that are compatible?
6) Will you purchase a network site license or
individual network licenses for your software?
7) Who will install and service the network and all
associated hardware and software?
8) Is someone available who can take day to day
responsibility for maintaining the network and
performing daily software backups?
9) Can I afford the costs involved with obtaining the
hardware and software for a network and the
operating costs?
The most important question has been reserved until last. Do you
really need a network, or can you make better use of the
resources currently available?
This is something I felt I had to get off my chest after
reading Brian J. Murrey's piece in FidoNews 539.
He refers in that piece to "a DOS machine" as a synonym, I
would presume, for "machine capable of running MS-DOS," or
"IBM PC compatible."
While this usage of the term "DOS" is currently fashionable,
I must nevertheless register my opposition.
"DOS" is a generic acronym for Disk Operating System, and as
such refers to a number of such systems. Apple had DOS 3.2
and DOS 3.3 for their Apple II line, before releasing ProDOS
as their new standard. Disk units for the Commodore 64 come
with routines in their ROM that are referred to in the
manuals as "DOS." The Atari 800's operating system was
loaded from the system master disk by typing the command
"DOS." The Amiga has AmigaDOS. Many such DOSes were
already in existence when Microsoft released PC-DOS and its
nearly-identical twin, MS-DOS.
Hence, it's incorrect and ambiguous to use the term "DOS" to
refer to MS-DOS exclusively, except in clearly machine-
specific contexts. Here are a few examples of what I mean.
INCORRECT USAGES: (based on actual examples I've
encountered in computer magazines, catalogs, and overheard
conversations among computer people)
"Different operating systems can have confusing differences.
For instance, UNIX uses forward slashes to designate
subdirectories, while DOS uses backward slashes."
(Wrong: MS-DOS and PC-DOS use backward slashes; some other
DOSes, like Apple ProDOS, follow UNIX usage!)
"Pages 1-5 of this catalog cover Mac software, and pages 6-
14 cover DOS software."
(Atari DOS or AmigaDOS? Actually, the only "DOS software"
is the system master disk; all other software is
applications software!)
"DOS machines are less friendly than Macintoshes."
(Does this include ProDOS 16 machines? Actually, there's no
such thing as a "DOS machine," since the machine is a piece
of hardware, while the DOS is a piece of software. What you
have is a machine capable of running a particular variety of
DOS.)
CORRECT USAGES:
FidoNews 5-42 Page 17 17 Oct 1988
"I prefer UNIX to MS-DOS."
(Refers to a particular operating system by its correct
name.)
"This software requires an IBM PC or compatible."
(Alternate tack: refers to the hardware by its correct
name. MS-DOS-compatible and IBM-compatible machines are
pretty much interchangeable these days, though there are a
few exceptions such as the DEC Rainbow that run MS-DOS but
aren't compatible with the IBM PC. To be precise, it's
best to say "MS-DOS" when referring to all MS-DOS based
machines, and "IBM-compatible" when referring to just those
which can run IBM PC software.)
(In a magazine clearly identified as IBM-PC-specific): "Here
are some hints and tips to help you make productive use of
DOS commands."
(Here the IBM PC's kind of DOS is presumed unless otherwise
indicated.)
(In a magazine clearly identified as Apple II-specific):
"You may need to convert a file from DOS 3.3 to ProDOS."
(Here, any references to DOS are presumed to be to Apple's
DOS, just as such references in IBM-specific publications
are presumed to be to IBM's. Thus, the "DOS 3.3" is the
earlier Apple operating system, not the MS-DOS 3.3 release.
If the article actually wanted to discuss conversion of
files from MS-DOS 3.3 to ProDOS, it would have said "You may
need to convert a file from MS-DOS 3.3 to ProDOS.")
I know I'm going against the current on this one, and future
dictionaries will probably end up defining DOS as "the
operating system devised by Microsoft for the IBM PC," but
as a long-time computerist, I had to object to what I felt
was an incorrect usage. I think this usage stems from the
arrogance of current computer users who feel that IBM PC's
are the only real computers. But, do you want to tell an
Apple II enthusiast who's been booting up his DOS 3.3 system
master for the last seven years that he's really not running
"DOS software"?
The following letter came in in last nights netmail!
Mr. Thom L. Henderson
System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
21 New Street
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Dear Mr. Henderson,
I object to the nature of the actions you and your company have
been taking against other software vendors, particularly
shareware companies working in the area of ARC-compatible
utilities.
I feel that these actions are without basis and done with malice
in an attempt to drive your competitors out of business. I don't
believe that these actions will benefit the PC user community or
your company in any way in the long term, nor that they will
advance the state of the art in software.
Indeed, I feel that their effects on the bulletin board community
are divisive. I feel that your actions are wrong. I ask that you
discontinue all such actions and undo the harm that you have
already done to the industry. Further, you should go back to
spending your efforts and money in a way more advantageous to
both yourself and the computer industry as a whole--and that is
in developing new products and improving your existing products
fairly and openly.
I was requested to sign it and then upload it to other systems.
What a bunch of crap this is! Thom Henderson has done more for
computer users than many people realize! Without ARC we would
all suffer. Without XLATLIST and other network utilities we
would be back to updating the nodelist BY HAND!! (Yes I Have
Been Around That Long!) You can believe me, it was a job just
making 20 changes a week. Can you IMAGINE what it would be like
making 100+ changes a week?
As an author myself, I recognize the value of both a Copyright
and a Trademark. The laws regarding these items were put in
place to protect the time and effort people put into their work!
I feel that Thom is well within his rights to protect his time
and effort!
Five weeks ago, Project X Announced the release of QBTOOLS
version 2.0. Now, with growing popularity, and demand, we
have released version 2.1.
Furthermore, Project X Software Development is proud to announce
the purchase of the GIZLIB routines from InfoSoft and M.K.
Yaklin's position as Technical Advisor to Project X. This
partnership is already bound to bring more routines into the
fold, and some exciting new projects are already in the works.
QBTOOLS/2.1 is an add on library for QuickBASIC version 4.0.
QT/2 A Fantastic Computer At A Great Price
By Gene Coppola
It has been six months since I first reported on the QT/2
computer system. Many improvements have taken place since then
and I felt an updated review was in order.
All QT/2 owners have received a motherboard upgrade as well as
an additional ROM upgrade. These upgrades were supplied at no
cost! Each owner received a letter asking us to have our
motherboard securely packaged and ready for pickup on a specific
date. U.P.S. delivered the new board and picked up the old one.
The first improvement has been the ROM updates. These were
received several weeks ago and have been installed and tested.
The updates provide for a speed increase of 300 per cent with a
VGA monitor. The QT/2 motherboard comes with a built in display
adaptor for Mono, CGA, EGA and VGA displays. The update provides
for a maximum resolution of 800 x 600 when a VGA monitor is in
use.
The second improvement has been in memory management. QT/2
motherboards come with 12 megabytes of 60ns RAM. The setup
routine now allows you to assign any portion of this RAM to
extended or expanded memory. This is a blessing for those of us
running Oracle, Desqview, OS/2 and Windows 386.
The third improvement is in OS/2 compatibility. OS/2 is fully
supported and works very well on the QT/2. The full 12 megabytes
can now be accessed. Windows 386 now files on the QT/2.
The fourth improvement is the internal disk controller. Over 120
different hard drives are now supported. The new controller now
supports six drives, both floppy and hard drives in any
combination. Cables are supplied for two hard drives and four
floppy drives. The controller also supports over 15 different
external or internal tape drive units.
The fifth and finest improvement is in the motherboard itself.
The updated motherboards are rated at 25 Mhz and come with both
80387 and Wietek co-processor sockets. 12 megabytes of 60ns RAM
are installed on the motherboard. Both the disk controller and
display adaptor use 32 bit architecture to provide the fastest
speeds possible. The motherboard tests out at a speed of 8.1
MIPS.
One 32 bit slot is provided on the motherboard for the optional
memory expansion board. The expansion board comes with 20
megabytes of 60ns RAM bringing the system total up to 32
megabytes. This additional RAM and the Wietek co-processor brings
mini-computer speed and power to you at micro-computer prices.
For those of you that did not read the first review I will go
over the major features of this fine system.
The QT/2 comes with 12 megabytes of 60ns RAM and a 64k 25ns high
FidoNews 5-42 Page 21 17 Oct 1988
speed cache. The main processor is a 25 Mhz 80386 with sockets
for an 80387 or Wietek co-processor.
A 40 megabyte Seagate ST-251-1 hard disk drive is included as
well as a 1.2 Mb floppy and a 360k floppy. Due to the
proprietary nature of the built in disk controller no
partitioning software is needed. Running under Dos 3.3 or OS/2
the QT/2 handles any hard drive up to 300 megabytes as one drive.
Two serial ports and two parallel ports are built into the
motherboard. A 220 watt switching power supply is now standard
equipment.
The disk controller and display adaptor are built into the
motherboard. Both are covered above so we will not go into those
items here.
A clock/calendar is built into the motherboard. This is backed
up by a regular nine volt battery that is known to be available
almost anywhere you go.
Nine expansion slots are available. One is a 32 bit slot reserved
for a RAM expansion board. Six slots are 16 bit slots and two are
8 bit slots. Almost every possible expansion feature is built
into the motherboard and nine slots seems like a bit of overkill,
but this is the way the board was designed.
The QT/2 comes in a heavy duty metal case complete with a key
lock that secures the case and activates the keyboard. A separate
lock is supplied to secure the power switch preventing
unauthorized use of the system.
The keyboard is an enhanced AT style keyboard with tactile touch
keys and led indicators for Num Lock, Caps Lock, and Scroll Lock.
The QT/2 is one of the few computers with a complete MCA style
bus. This is completely functional and has been tested with many
of the expansion products now available for PS/2 systems.
This is truly an exceptional value at $1995.00. An 80386 based
system with an MCA style bus ready to plug in and run. The hard
drive comes formatted under DOS 3.3 but can be easily be
reformatted if desired.
At this time the motherboard is not available as a separate item,
but future plans include selling the motherboard as separate
unit.
The United States distributor for the QT/2 is A WORLD OF
COMPUTERS at 151-28 22nd Avenue in Whitestone, New York. The zip
code is 11357. No phone inquiries please.
Currently there is a shipping backlog of about 14 to 21 days from
the day an order with full payment is received.
All QT/2 systems come with a 13 month warranty covering parts,
FidoNews 5-42 Page 22 17 Oct 1988
labor, shipping and insurance in the event a system must be
returned for repair.
SUPERLIB, the finest user library for Quick Basic 4.0 owners
has been updated and enlarged and now includes support for OS/2.
New features have been added and old ones improved upon.
The first and most obvious feature is the size of SUPERLIB! The
library now has over 120 routines including complete mouse and
DOS level file control. This is about 60% more than in previous
versions and puts it on par with the expensive commercial
libraries. Many of the SUPERLIB routines run under OS/2!
Many FUNCTIONS have been written in Assembler! This allows you to
evaluate a subroutine as an expression or assign the result in
fewer lines of code! This lends itself to a number of advantages,
ie; the code is smaller, easier to read, and makes more sense. All
it requires is a simple DECLARE statement at the start of your
code.
SUPERLIB now supports complete file access via DOS Functions. In
so doing, you can completely avoid those annoying runtime errors
by letting DOS return an error code, rather than an error!
SUPERLIB now has a considerable number of routines added for
mouse support, including cursor control, mouse work area
restrictions, and sensitivity. These have been thoroughly tested
on the new Microsoft mouse, the Logitech mouse and the Mouse
Systems mouse. All work fine except the Mouse Systems mouse needs
an explicit call to set the cursor mask, so we have added one.
The routines used in SUPERLIB are written mostly in assembler
and assembled under MASM 5.0. The few BASIC based routines that
there are, were written under QuickBASIC 4.0.
We distribute SUPERLIB in two different ways. The ShareWare
version provides you with everything you need to call and execute
the SUPERLIB routines from within the editor/environment. This
provides an ample opportunity for testing and evaluation. The
ShareWare disk is available for $10 which includes postage.
The complete version of SUPERLIB is for those of you who want to
incorporate SUPERLIB routines in their own .EXE applications. In
this case, the library of routines and a license to use them in
such applications is available for $20 which includes postage.
This breaks down to a cost of less than 14 cents per routine. No
other user library comes close to our low cost. SUPERLIB comes
with over 50 popular public domain programs including a screen
generator that generates Microsoft object files compatible with
Quick Basic, C, Pascal, Fortran, MASM, Lattice C, Aztec C,
Clipper and a host of other languages that support .OBJ files.
SUPERLIB is available from BASIC PROGRAMMERS LIMITED, 2nd Floor,
110 Hillsboro Avenue, Elmont, New York 11003 and is covered by a
money back warranty.
Well it is again time to run a survey and see who reads FIDONEWS.
Last years results were interesting and this year I hope to get
more responses then last year!
The idea behind the survey is to try and determine the readership
of FIDONEWS, where these people live and their age.
It was suggested that instead of asking people to send a postcard
that we use netmail instead. After much thought I agree with this
method. It is easier for most people and much quicker than
waiting for postcards to get here.
If you would like to participate please send a netmail message to
GENE COPPOLA on 1:107/200. Please include your age, and what
city, state or province and the country you live in.
The results will be published in a future issue of FIDONEWS.
SYSOP SUES USER WHO ALLEGEDLY UPLOADED TROJAN PROGRAM
by Jonathan D. Wallace, Esq. 107/801
Bill Christison, sysop of a bulletin board system called the
Santa Fe Message, filed suit in August in New Mexico federal
court against a user he believed had uploaded a trojan horse
program to his BBS.
The program, which purported to compile statistics on BBS usage,
erased the operating system from Christison's hard disk and
damaged the file allocation table when he ran it.
With the aid of the telephone company, Christison was able to
identify the user (who had called his BBS under a pseudonym as
Michael Dagg, also of New Mexico.)
Christison's law suit is the second case involving bulletin board
systems to have been brought under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).
Under the ECPA, it is a federal crime to access stored electronic
communications without authorization and to alter, obtain or
prevent access to such communications. Penalties include
imprisonment of up to one year and fines up to $250,000.00.
The statute also provides for private civil suits such as
Christison's.
As of October 7th, Dagg had not yet hired an attorney or
responded to the complaint, according to Christison's attorney,
Ann Yalman.
The ECPA potentially provides a potent tool for sysops who wish
to defend themselves against malicious users. It is a two-edged
sword, however: the first case brought under the ECPA involving
bulletin board systems was Thompson v. Predaina, in which a user
sued a sysop who allegedly made private files public without
permission.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Wallace, Esq., an attorney in private practice
in New York City, is editor of The Computer Law Letter, a
bimonthly newsletter, and author of SYSLAW: The Sysop's
Legal Manual. He can be reached at (212) 766-3785 or at
Fido 107/801.
As long as folks are going to go through all the time,
energy, and hassle to write computer viruses, I'd like some
custom made, please. I mean, since most computers won't
practice safe software sharing, I may as well turn that to
some advantage. I know there are electronic condoms
floating around, such as FluShot+ and C-4, but most computer
users don't know about them (there was no Computer Sex
Education in Health Class in High School).
It has occurred to me that one virus could infect the
OPUS.EXE file to produce a CRASH file in the Outbound File
Area, which would contain the host's BBS.CTL and USER.BBS
files, to be sent late at night while the infected host's
SysOp innocently slept. Some fine folks have done this
already via "BBS utilities," and not viruses; The "virus
approach" is the next step.
A nice feature for the infected OPUS.EXE file would be
instant SysOp access to each and every caller who used a
particular password. This password would be known only to
the author of the virus and myself, who payed for the
genetic engineering project in the first place. This is
much safer than looking for a particular user's name to
assign SysOp level, of course, and this will insure that
when the genuine, true, legitimate SysOp discovers the bogus
one (me), I can always call back under a different name to
reek my havoc, to pillage, to plunder, etc.
Have you ever considered the incalculable damage a
virus that seeks out LANs could do? Our LAN here at work is
hooked up to Chicago via a 9600 baud modem. Files sent over
this phone line go not only to the corporate data base
there, but from there to six other divisions in the
corporation. Gee. Think of the possibilities! A month
from now over 2,000 employees could come to work in the
morning, type in LOTUS at their DOS prompt, and get a warm,
friendly greeting from me instead! I'll take one of these
viruses too, please. Thank you.
Speaking of spread sheets, there's another virus I'd
like, if you don't mind. Let's suppose I worked for the
Mish Mash Development Corporation, who is in the Spreadsheet
development industry. Naturally, I'd want only OUR
spreadsheet to be used. This virus would infect every file
on some poor unsuspecting slob's computer, of course, but
it's main function would be to seek out and destroy all
"Lotus 1-2-3" <tm> and "Quatro" <tm> and "Symphony" <tm>
files, thus clearing up space for our "Mish Mash Inna Flash"
spreadsheet, which isn't nearly as nice but at least it
isn't copy protected. I suspect the market for this virus
to be a massive one: I envision the hard disk becoming a
FidoNews 5-42 Page 27 17 Oct 1988
battle ground, with "R:Base System V" <tm> fighting a
desperate struggle against "D:BaseIII+" <tm> for complete
and total hard disk domination. Rival software could easily
keep you on your toes, and add much to the wear and tear of
your disk drives. I'll take one of these geared against
"ASTROL95", please (my rival in the astrology software
market). Thank you much.
Perhaps another virus would cause a subliminal message
to flash on the screen every few minutes that says "DAVID
DESERVES A PAY RAISE!" I could deliberately go to the
Manager Offices and infect their computers. "Hey," I would
begin, blushing and innocent as a virgin, "I've got a neat
program here that makes your computer run 875.62% (on
average) faster! Let me install it for you. . . ." This
virus would have an install program to change the message.
In this way I could sell my services to those who require a
raise in pay, at a flat rate or a percentage over an agreed
upon time period. The possibilities are endless with this
virus: "Vote For ME!" or "SAVE THE DINOSAURS!" or "GOD IS
DEAD!" or "REMOVE YOUR BRA!" or "STOP PICKING YOUR NOSE,
JERK!" My boss might come up with one that says "QUIT!" or
"YOU'RE FIRED!" just to keep my anxiety level high.
So if you are in the virus engineering business, please
drop me a line. Let's talk.
Distributed Electronic Voting
as it aplies to Fidonet elections and plebicites
By useing the capabilities of public key encryption it
is relativly simple to provide for verifiable electronic
voting with simple netmail attached files. There are a few
practical considerations which complicate matters but do not
by any means prevent implementation.
I will assume a passing familiarity with public key
encryption techniques. For further info interested parties
should refer to past fidonews issues.
The simplest form of voteing would be a "public forum"
or "show of hands" type of voting. The only special
consideration required is verification of the voter's
identity and their right to vote such that only registered
voters vote and they only get one vote each. For our
purposes, the nodelist is usually the list of registered
voters.
To start with each voter would generate his own public
key. These keys are in the form of small (less than 1/2 k)
files. The keys should be collected through the regular
hub-NC-RC-ZC hierarchy. All public keys should be freely
available at any level to anyone who wants a copy (of the
full set or any subset). This would mean that at the top
levels the full collection would amount to perhaps 2
megabytes for 4000 nodes. Fidonet bounces files of this
magnitude around the net it seems fairly often in the form
of echomail.
NCs and RCs would be responsible for resolvoing any
discrepancies such as conflicting submisions for a single
node. A directly delivered message to the node's phone
number bypassing all routeing and pick-up situations should
resolve any such problems. If there are further questions,
protocols can be worked out to resolve them.
Any node should be able to verify their key at any time
with a digitally signed message from their NC or in extreme
cases RC or even ZC/IC.
Once the keys are collected, they would be relativley
stable. At least as stable as the nodelist. Nodes not
submitting a key could be implying a wish not to vote. In
particular, keys need not be changed for subsequent
elections.
When a vote is to take place, it would follow the same
flow of information. At each level the votes would be
verified and sumarized so that an RC does not need to
actually do the full digital signature verification on all
votes but only needs to sum up the votes from the NCs in his
region and verify the independant nodes and add them into
the totals. The RC would also forward all the actual signed
FidoNews 5-42 Page 29 17 Oct 1988
votes to the ZC for random checks or verification. Note
that no one should need to send the whole works in one shot.
Only the votes from one region would be sent.
ZCs simply add up the totals from the RCs and if
required forwards the totals to the IC (and makes available
the votes themselves to other interested parties such as
scrutineers). The ballots themselves can be quite small
files also, on the order of 100 bytes, depending on the
exact issues being voted upon.
Note that this particular plan depends on the vote being
open as oposed to a secret ballot vote. Note also that the
above proposal is a minumum. For instance, an RC who has a
very fast machine could verify all the ballots from his
region. The reason that full verification is not required
is that the verification process is rather time consuming
(pure CPU time that is). Also the candidates or any
interested parties could perform spot checks or
verifications to search for anomalies.
If it is determined that a secret ballot is required
then it becomes even more complicated. Several layers of
encryption are required and extra record keeping is needed
for verification or re-counts. The simplest form would go
something like this:
First a returning officer would be appointed. He would
create a special public key for the vote and publish it in
fidonews or somehow make sure all eligible voters got a copy
of it. He would also appoint deputies for each region or
voting district. The deputies would get copies of the
special private key. In normal cases this might be the RC
unless some conflict of interest is in effect. Special
deputies for the nets may also be needed if a NC is not
suitable but the net level would not have the special
private keys. Probably the regional deputies could be
empowered to apoint net level deputies. (Zone 2 and 3
sysops, please excuse me if I gloss over inter-zone
protocols. I beleive they can be extrapolated relativly
simply from this.)
The voter creates his ballot without personally
identifying marks and encrypts it with the special public
key. The voter then signs the result with his own private
key and sends the result to his NC. The NC gathers all the
ballots which come in before the voting deadline and removes
the first layer using the public keys of his nodes insuring
that only registered voters have voted and that they have
only voted once. He forwards the results to the RC. It may
be desireable to have the NC sign and/or encrypt this stuff.
The NC must keep the signed ballots in case verification is
ever asked for. The NC should NOT show the signed ballots
to his RC though in order to maintain the secrecy of the
ballot. The NC knows who voted but does not know how they
voted.
FidoNews 5-42 Page 30 17 Oct 1988
The RC should only receive annonymous messages encrypted
with the special public key. When the RC de-crypts them he would
only count proper un-spoiled ballots (without identifying
marks etc). The RC then forwards a tally on up the ladder
in the same manner as the previous example. The RC should
be careful to not reveal the corespondance between the
encrypted ballots he receives and the decrypted ballots that
he counts.
This implies a minimal level of trust in the
coordinators by the voters. If the RC or NC is deemed
unsuitable for either of these tasks then alternate election
officers should be appointed. If it is estimated that the
computational burden on the RC's machine would be too great
then extra deputies could be added to help out. A CPA or
somesuch could be hired to do verifications but such a
person would need considerable computing power or a lot of
time to do a full verification. It would be quite feasable
to verify only the top levels completely and make do with
spot checks at lowwer levels.
If the coordinator is not trusted by the voters and no
acceptable alternate can be agreed upon, the voters can
either revert to a non-secret ballot or attempt to arrange a
protocol where no one needs to be trusted. If they try for
the latter, and I'm not sure it is possible, it will
doubtless involve more administration and more computation
than the plans presented here. Perhaps they should also
consider reverting to a primitive style paper vote.
One major advantage for this system is that it should be
possible to carry it out much faster than a paper/post
office type of vote. The ballots could go out in fnews or
an echo conference and the results should be tallyable
within a week.
This article should demonstrate the feasability of a
completely electronic voting system. The security of the
system is demonstrably quite high and should be technically
acceptable to anyone who wishes to investigate the details
further. It is possible to add even more security at the
cost of extra computational and orgazizational effort.
There remains only to work out nameing conventions for the
various files and archives and a general acceptance of the
scheme by the fidonet community. This last may be the most
difficult.
Anyone familiar with the PKSCrypt software system for
public key encryption may notice that I have selfish reasons
for promoting these concepts. I will try to partially
defuse that objection by saying that I am willing to let
Fidonet sysops use PKSCrypt for Fidonet voteing purposes
without demanding that they pay the shareware licence fee;
at least until alternative public key encryption packages
become available from other sources. I have prepared a
document which should allow sufficiently technically
FidoNews 5-42 Page 31 17 Oct 1988
oriented people to create such software. That document and
the PKSCrypt package are available from my system for MANUAL
download on your first call. FILE REQUESTS ARE NOT
SUPPORTED.
Lloyd Miller
Node 1:134/1
1(403)282-1703, 2400 bps
Calgary, Alberta
1988 October 2
"IF THIS REALLY WAS A GOOD HOBBY NETWORK YOU'D TALK ABOUT D&D".
This was a message to me from a user about my board. I don't
happen to have any message areas that cover D&D. Funny that
should be the case, since my advertised specialty areas are
EagleTech Software and the national AVIATION EchoMail conference.
I politely responded, explaining that "Amateur Hobby Network"
means that *I* have a hobby in playing with computers and
networking them together. It does not necessarily follow that I
support all hobbies. Even though I happen to like D&D and other
adventure, role-playing and war games.
Then I get this guy who calls in with a name whose validity I
question. So I left him a message AND a custom welcome, asking
him to verify the name, with address and phone number. Seven
times he logged in, saw the custom welcome, and hit all the file
areas and logged off. I dropped him to DISGRACE status, left a
more clearly worded custom welcome; still he called in about four
more times, tried to hit the file areas (the only one allowed at
DISGRACE level is the FidoNews Area), and logged off. So I
TWITted him. Why didn't he just leave me a message? I even told
him how to do it on the custom welcome.
And the classic - "Hacker calling". Oh, that's TWIT level
immediately.
Why is it so hard for people to say who they really are on BBSs?
I don't recall ever having that difficulty when *I* was a mere
user. And if ever there was a strange person, I definitely
qualify. But *I* never had any problems using my real name.
Handles are kind of nice, when they apply, but this doesn't cut
well in EchoMail. Too many people out there.
Oh, well, even FidoNet can't be all blessings and charm, I
suppose. I've been blessed, even in my troubles with users, in
that I haven't had any vicious hackers trying to crash my board
or slam my communication links. I've heard of such, but (knock
on wood) haven't seen any.
I guess I'll just overlook the negative side and enjoy my hobby.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-42 Page 33 17 Oct 1988
=================================================================
FOR SALE
=================================================================
SYSOPS HERE IS THE SALE YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR
We are proud to be able to sponsor another sale just for FidoNet
Sysops! You must be listed in the most recent nodelist from 1/0
as a node that is available for the public to call. If you are
listed as a private or unlisted node then you are not eligible
to purchase or participate in our Fall sale!
Our Fall special is a 6/10 Mhz 80286 system. The system consists
of a 6/10 Mhz motherboard, a Western Digital Combination disk
controller, an AT style case with key lock, reset and speed
switches, power, speed and disk LED indicators, an auto switch AT
style extended keyboard, a 1.2mb floppy, a 360k floppy, a 200
watt AT style switching power supply and a 16 bit multi I/O card.
This system is unique in the fact that it can use one of three
different types of memory chips. You can use 150ns, 120ns, or
100ns chips and the motherboard allows up to one megabyte of
memory on the motherboard. The price for the system DOES NOT
INCLUDE any memory! Chip prices fluctuate to rapidly for us to
publish a firm memory chip price several weeks ahead of time.
Our special Fall price is a low $898.00 which includes a six
month warranty for parts and labor and all documentation. The
price DOES NOT INCLUDE any memory, DOS or shipping charges. This
system CANNOT be shipped outside of the continental United
States. Pickups can be arranged for Sysops who desire to pick
up the system in person instead of having it shipped.
For further information send your name and mailing address to A
World Of Computers at 151-28 22nd Avenue in Whitestone, NY. The
zip code is 11357. These systems are now in stock and each system
is tested for 24 hours before it is shipped to insure proper
operation.
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.
Hal DuPrie 1:101/106 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Ray Gwinn 1:109/639 Vice President - Technical Coordinator
David Garrett 1:103/501 Secretary
Steve Bonine 1:115/777 Treasurer
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732? Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Hal DuPrie 1:101/106
12 Bill Bolton 3:54/61 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Rick Siegel 1:107/27 Steve Bonine 1:115/777
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Larry Kayser 1:104/739? Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Vince Perriello 1:141/491 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Rob Barker 1:138/34 Steve Jordan 1:102/2871
18 Christopher Baker 1:135/14 Bob Swift 1:140/24
19 David Drexler 1:19/1 Larry Wall 1:15/18
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
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
PO Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
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 second elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-42 Page 37 17 Oct 1988
INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
ORDER FORM
Publications
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.
