Volume 6, Number 29 17 July 1989
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
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. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 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.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
received.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
Update to Policy 4 Appeal ................................ 2
A letter from a FidoNet Sysop ............................ 8
Microcomputer Communications ............................. 11
File Compression - an Update ............................. 15
Number nine, number nine, number nine, .................. 17
View From The Trenches on Fidonet, *C's, etc ............. 19
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 22
Latest Software Versions ................................. 22
4. NOTICES .................................................. 24
And more!
FidoNews 6-29 Page 1 17 Jul 1989
=================================================================
EDITORIAL
=================================================================
Hello again, as always.
In this issue, I have decided to add Mac and Amiga to the
Software Versions section. I don't have much for Amiga right now
except for a full-function BBS that does netmail, and I think
that I have too much for Mac, as the list sent me seems to
include stuff that has nothing to do with FidoNet, but it's a
start.
Amiga owners, could you send me info on nodelist processors/mail
editors/archive programs/etc?
Mac owners, could you help me pare that list? StuffIt doesn't
really get used for FidoNet operations, does it? Is there
anything else on that list that can be taken off?
One more thing. Please don't send text of articles, etc in
messages, I might not remember to extract them. Additionally, in
the near future I'll devise a naming convention for archived
articles and add it to ARTSPEC. I'll let you know when I put a
new one up.
Hey, this is all supposed to be fun. So let's have some FUN!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 2 17 Jul 1989
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
Update to Policy 4 Appeal from Doug Thompson 1:221/0 - 221/162
drdrdrdrdrdrrrrring . . . . drdrdrdrdrdrrrrring . . . .
"Oh boy, the phone's ringing again . . . I'm never gonna finish
reading my netmail today . . . <sigh>"
drdrdrdrdrdrrrrring . . . .
"Hello", says Doug rather gruffly.
"Hi Doug, it's David Dodell. My WATS line isn't working to Canada
today, are you in a position to call me back?"
"Hmmm. For this one, yeah, sure, what's your number?"
Thus began a very interesting discussion about fidonet and policy
that lasted for about 3 hours which leads me to want to add a lot
to the policy appeal I sent in to fidonet earlier this week.
Some of my most serious concerns were alleviated. The most
important things to my mind (David's quite capable of speaking
for himself) in that conversation:
1) David assured me that no one would be removed from the
nodelist for any opinion or statement about policy 4, including
an expressed refusal to comply with it. The only grounds for
excommunication remain technical and *repeated* violations of
policy must occur before an excommunication would occur. That is
to say a violation will get you a warning, repeat violations can
get you excommunicated. Refusing the acknowledge the legitimacy
of policy 4 can't get you either.
In fidonet it continues to be "legal" to speak your mind and say
darned near anything you want without fear of direct punishment.
Our coordinators will not be taking a cue from the Ayatollah and
issuing death-warrants for calling Mohammed a devil, cursing Tom
Jennings' mother or even, presumably, cursing their coordinator.
2) David expressed surprise at the result of the p4 vote. He had
expected it to be defeated. So had I. Understandably this
intensifies my concern that the room allowed for electoral abuses
actually might well have been used more than once or twice.
3) As for "real democracy", the major stumbling block appears to
be two-fold. First, the logistical problem of how do we hold a
ballot among all sysops. The second is more complex.
Coordinators are administrators first, but we are also political
representatives.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 3 17 Jul 1989
In the P 4 deliberations coordinators were called upon to act as
legislators and political representatives of their nets. Most of
the time coordinators merely administer policy. These are very
different jobs and in most organizations are quite separate.
Normally the political reps are the masters of the
administrators. In fidonet we have both functions and roles
wrapped into one job. While the political rep should obviously
be elected in order to assure that s/he is representative,
electing administrators is somewhat questionable. While it is
basically not suitable for an elected rep to be subject to
removal from above (imagine the President removing congressmen he
didn't approve of) it is necessary that a postmaster be able to
discipline, or even remove an incompetent letter-carrier, even if
the letter-carrier was "elected" and is very popular.
This duality of role has something to do with the lack of
agreement we've seen concerning who should be elected by whom,
and who should be appointed by whom.
A comment ....
Some years ago the idea emerged of creating a non-profit
organization with an elected governing "council" which would
protect the nodelist and be responsible for writing policy,
holding elections, organizing the defence of sysops brought
before the courts, and that sort of thing. Such an organization
would enable the "political" and "administrative" functions to be
separated.
That idea resulted in the creation of IFNA which did not,
regrettably, come together as hoped. It has not achieved true
representative status because you still have to pay a $25 fee to
get a vote, it's not open to all in the nodelist.
If we have to have the administrator and the political rep in one
job and one person, then it is important that there be ways in
which the individual can be removed both from above and below as
well as ways of selecting a suitable individual. David brought
this up, I entirely agree.
4) There are two very different aspects to fidonet. One is
technical, and one is social. On the technical side the major
concern is simply the efficient movement of mail between the
sender and the addressee. On the social side is that whole realm
of concerns which arise because we are a volunteer organization
and have a lot of tasks to be apportioned to various people. We
know how to move the bytes, now, how do we get the necessary
people to do the appropriate things such that the know-how is
implemented? Motivating people to do things, encouraging their
creativity, and getting people to comply with rules, etc., are not
technical problems, they are wholly political and cultural
problems. They may have to do with solving technical problems,
but there are no technical solutions to people problems.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 4 17 Jul 1989
On the social side too is the whole area of social
impact of new technology. To some extent fidonet is a community
of people, and it has relations with other groups in society such
as other networks, regulatory agencies in many jurisdictions,
companies wishing to market to us or market our nodelist, etc.
While most of these issues have technical attributes, they are
not primarily technical problems.
Then there is conflict resolution. A lot of stupid conflicts
arise. Coordinators are assigned the task of resolution. This
"judicial" aspect of the job is another of the non-technical
parts of the role. Some countries do elect judges, and it seems
to work. But clearly while a higher court can over-turn a
decision of a lower one, a judge must be "independent" and should
not have to worry about public opinion, or anything else but
achieving a just resolution of a conflict. S/he should not be
subject to removal if s/he makes decisions which don't happen to be
popular. A good judge nevertheless takes the public mood into
consideration when sentencing. Finally, real judicial systems
have juries and juries often enough kill old laws and make new
ones by refusing to convict people for things of which they are
clearly guilty. This is one way that law is "democratized".
Regardless of what the law says, if you can't find a jury that
will bring in a guilty verdict, you don't have a conviction. And
after that, you don't have a law.
David Dodell put it quite eloquently, stating that primarily "we
are moving data. The movement of that data can accomplish great
social things".
I see things just a little differently. The end, or goal, is not
the movement of data, that's only the means. The end is the "great
social things". To get the great social things, we need to move
data effectively. After all, if our messages all consisted of
random bytes we could move them just as efficiently but there'd
be no point would there? The successful movement of a message
from Europe to Oceania in minutes for less than the cost of a
postage stamp is impressive technically, but it's also a very
great "social thing". And if it were not a great social thing few
of us would bother doing it.
I'd add one further proviso. Unlike AT&T mail, or Envoy 100,
fidonet depends on voluntary labour from many people to move data.
Unless the perception is there that the "great social things" are
happening, or about to happen, the supply of volunteer labour is
liable to dry up and then the movement of data ceases.
Excessively authoritarian management, while possibly effective in
the short term, ultimately alienated volunteer creative input and
thus ends up defeating its own purpose.
Remember fidonet should be "fun". By that I *do not* mean, a joke
or merely a recreational activity. I believe work should be "fun"
in the same way, and I'm willing to "work" very hard at having
meaningful "fun". I mean that fidonet should encourage creative
expression, innovation and invention. If it is not highly
enjoyable it can't attract new people so easily and it will
FidoNews 6-29 Page 5 17 Jul 1989
alienate current participants. Autocratic *Cs can do more to dry
up the fun than *anything* else. It's no fun having a bully
ordering you around, threatening to excommunicate you for
"insubordination". This is not AT&T mail. This is not the army.
There is no oath of allegiance to any monarch or any flag
required. This is a part of the first wave of the information
revolution in which *people* and the information they possess are
the ultimate value. Of much greater value than money. That
information is usually enhanced in value if it can be moved.
Excommunicating a node if it is at all possible not to is
directly equivalent to a bank burning hundred dollar bills
because they cause some annoyance. It is an attack on the very
fundamental basics of the whole operation.
5) So we agree we have lots of problems with policy 4, and we
agree that the best bet is to forge ahead with a policy 5 process
that will aim at learning from our mistakes.
What are the challenges for policy 5?
There is nearly universal recognition of the need for the net to
be ultimately bottom-up, which means that any administrative
hierarchy must be controlled by the bottom through democratic
avenues of some sort. Maybe we should think about getting rid of
the hierarchy entirely? There is nearly as universal a
recognition that the strictly technical organization of the net
is not, primarily, a political or social issue, but wholly a
technical one. Politicising it could be inefficient.
I've not heard anyone challenge the usefulness of the technical
role of the coordinators to assign node numbers, edit the
nodelist, and make sure it is accurate and quickly dispatched
throughout the net. I really don't think it would help anyone to
get into political debates about who should get which node
number, for instance.
On the other hand, coordinators end up making a lot of political
decisions about who is or isn't in the net, and there are those
questions which have both technical and social attributes, such
as geographic boundaries for local networks. Those get very
political without losing a technical aspect. They cause a lot of
unrest because while they are both social and technical issues,
they are only being addressed by policy as technical issues.
Trouble is wholly predictable when that mistake is made.
Technical rules cannot solve political problems, and the attempt
to do so inevitably exacerbates the situation.
Policy 4 bans the use of encryption which I find slightly
bewildering since it is being so rapidly embraced by the rest of
the world, and enhances the value of e-mail so much. That is the
sort of decision which is wholly political since the "technology"
would be mostly unaffected.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 6 17 Jul 1989
That's just mentioned as an example of something which should be
decided in a political process by the bottom.
What we need therefore is a device to enable meaningful
participation from the bottom, from any sysop who wants to
participate. If we don't create that kind of a device the
"bottom-up" aspect of fidonet will cease to exist and it will be
run much like a feudal fiefdom by its coordinators forever.
We are extremely fortunate at the moment in having a wise,
intelligent, fair-minded International Coordinator who is
concerned to see these problems untangled. I've had occasion to
exchange quite a lot of mail with David since he was appointed IC
by IFNA in December of 87 and while we've certainly had our
disagreements, I have seen the man persuaded by solid arguments
many times and generally do the right thing. We are *very* lucky.
Given all the givens, we might not be so lucky next time.
C'mon Fidonet, let's seize the opportunity *now* and do some
creative organizational work which results in both an efficient
administrative system and representative, open, and democratic
social policy-making system!
Really, the basics are pretty simple. Technically we need to
ensure software compatibility and mail-hour integrity and
accuracy of the nodelist. Socially and politically we need to
assure that no political, ideological, racial or other
discriminatory practices are used anywhere in fidonet to
exclude people or systems from being listed.
That one paragraph addresses the necessities to have a net that
works and a net that is basically open to the whole human race,
regardless of religion, race, nationality, political affiliation,
gender, or opinion about policy 4!
All that's left is the implementation and the process of making
decisions about things.
By and large I think we in fidonet agree on the basics. In a
couple of weeks I'll have more thoughts to send fidonews on the
details.
We may discover that these objectives are impossible. We may
discover that people will use and abuse the technology with
complete abandon no matter what we do. We may discover that we
are not "organizable". It's certainly not a simple and
straightforward issue. BUT - we'll never know unless we make a
determined effort.
=Doug
FidoNews 6-29 Page 7 17 Jul 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 8 17 Jul 1989
A letter from a FidoNet Sysop
Pablo Kleinman (4:1200/101)
FidoNet Coordinator for Zone 4
Dear colleague,
To start, I give you my apologies for choosing such an
"ordinary" topic for this letter.
We have all seen and sometimes participated (and still
see and sometimes still participate) on a big discussion that
involved (and still involves) a big (if not all) of FidoNet
during the last months.
POLICY4 was (is) the controversial matter, the very
center of that discussion.
I, myself, had some problems with the International
Coordinator regarding the new POLICY: I don't agree with a lot
of things, especially with the distribution of power along the *C
structure, to which I belong both as Regional and Zone
coordinator, and with the methods adopted for elections.
If I would be power-hungry, I could just sit down and say
nothing: I'm probably the most power-secure individual in the
net, as it is impossible to anyone (following the procedures
specified in POLICY4) to remove me.
But I'm obviously not (I'm writing this, right now). And
I expressed that from the beginning to David Dodell and others.
Before voting for POLICY4, we [Z4 sysops] protested
because we were not invited to participate on its writing, and
informed the IC that we wanted a chance to propose some changes
before it was finally approved. But David Dodell didn't give us
any answer at all, he simply ignored the text.
POLICY4 was unanimously rejected by the whole *C
structure of Zone 4, especially by myself. The reason: while
I'm not sure if "democracy" would be the best way to handle the
net, I'm positively against any kind of "aristocracy".
POLICY4 is definitely aristocratic, and that aristocracy
is made up by the RCs and ZCs.
That does not mean that the RCs and ZCs are the bad guys
on this story, or that they have bad intentions. I have treated
the ZCs for a while already, and sincerely trust on the ZCs good
intentions. I'm a Regional and Zone coordinator myself, and
trust on my good intentions :-).
FidoNews 6-29 Page 9 17 Jul 1989
But the legitimacy of the power structure at FidoNet is
questionable for many.
But with more discussions and x-large FidoNews we won't
change anything, or at least, we won't get any positive results.
In Zone 4, POLICY4 was approved only last week (by Z4's
*C structure), and if it was, it was done on a "preliminary
basis", which means that the decision could be reverted if the
same people vote against it anytime.
We [the representatives of Zone 4] voted for POLICY4 just
to avoid more trouble with the IC.
But I won't wait a second this time: something has to be
done, as soon as possible.
I personally don't trust in revolutions: they always
bring more problems than the ones they eradicate.
My proposal is to "go slowly but steadily": let's
propose some essential changes in POLICY4.
For example, I'd like the NCs to participate in the
elections; and think this could be a good start for bringing a
democratic form of administration for FidoNet.
I took the initiative and added a node named "Change
Policy4!" in the nodelist, with the number 4:4/5 (the Policy5
Project).
The Policy5 Project will write a Policy5 proposal, that
when finished, will be presented to the whole *C structure to be
voted.
But if we want a Policy representing the views of the
majority of FidoNet, we definitely need participation. Consider
yourself from now, invited to participate in the Policy5 Project.
We do need YOU! FidoNet needs YOU!
We will soon start an echomail conference to talk about
each matter, and to let everyone express his/her views and make
proposals for each topic. And we need desperately YOUR help, to
distribute the P5PROJECT echo in zones 1, 2 and 3.
Please, contact us right now: this is your best chance
to get involved.
I hope you got the basic idea. If you have further
questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 10 17 Jul 1989
Thank you in advance for all your help in writing a
better policy for a better FidoNet, and for taking the time to
read this text.
My best regards,
Pablo Kleinman (4:1200/101)
FidoNet Coordinator for Zone 4
Buenos Aires, Argentina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 11 17 Jul 1989
Claude F. Witherspoon
Fido 1:288/525
Home of KidsNews & NCLM (tm) Echo
Microcomputer Communications
In following the KIDS echo conference, KidsNews learned that the
area in which more information is needed is microcomputer
communications. Therefore, we offer the following information to
assist you in understanding some of the terms you see mentioned
as you communicate with the various BBSes, Mainframes, etc.
around the nation.
MODEM is an abbreviation for MOdulator/DEModulator. A modem is
necessary when communicating between computers using a phone
line. The phone system is analog (using tones of different
frequencies) and computer output is digital (0 or 1, ON or OFF).
The modem's job is to convert (modulate), the computer's digital
signal to analog and demodulate the analog to digital at the
receiving end. Consequently, two modems are needed for data
exchange over a phone line between computers.
The Hayes Smart Modem 300 was first introduced in May of 1981 and
quickly became the industry standard, with a data transfer rate
of 300 bits per second (bps). Larger numbered modems indicate a
higher transfer speed; e.g., the Hayes Smart Modem 2400 tranfers
data at 2400 bps. A modem's speed is measured in bits per second,
although this is commonly inaccurately referred to as "baud."
Modems can be either internal (on a card inside your computer) or
external (a seperate box with visible lights to indicate when it
is on and operating).
Data can be sent either SERIAL or PARALLEL. Serial means one bit
at a time. Parallel sends one character (8 bits) at a time.
Modems are serial devices.
Amplifiers are used to boost the signal when transmitting long
distances on analog lines, but this results in increased noise
levels. If the signal were digital, regenerators would be used
instead of amplifiers, and less noise and higher accuracy would
result. These benifits, plus greater speed and capacity, are what
make fiber optic lines so attractive. The phone industry is
headed towards digital transmission, so modems may someday be a
thing of the past.
When a signal is sent, it is either synchronous or asynchonous.
Asynchronous is the most common. It always has a start bit (0)
and one or more stop bits (1). Synchronous sends a 128k packet of
information and is used in communicating with mainframes. Modems
are asynchronous devices. A typical signal would look like the
following:
FidoNews 6-29 Page 12 17 Jul 1989
start / data / parity / stop
0 / ####### / 1 / 1
PARITY refers to error checking. There are three choices for
error checking: ODD, EVEN, or NONE. NONE means no error checking
will be done. This results in a faster transfer rate, but low
reliability. EVEN means a 1 will be placed in position 9, if
needed, to keep the total number of occurrences of (1s) even. ODD
will use the same position to make the sum of ones an odd number.
(If you are running a BBS, set your machine to NONE. This will
accept a caller using ODD, EVEN, or NONE. Otherwise, they will
have to use the same parity that the BBS modem is using.)
PROTOCOL is the term used for "method of communication". We as
humans in America have a protocol of English: one person talks
then the next talks, etc. The most popular, standard protocol is
XMODEM, which involves the following:
SOH BLK#1 BLK#1 DATA CKSUM
The SOH character (start of heading), followed by teo block
numbers, signals the start of one 128 byte block transfer. The
block number and its complement assure accuracy and proper
sequencing. Data can be any size up to 128 bytes (or characters).
The CKSUM, known as check-sum, uses the modulo sum of the ASCII
values of each character in the data field. If the checksum
received equals the checksum transmitted, an acknowledgement
(ACK) is sent back from the recieving computer. If a NAK is sent,
(negative acknowledgement), then an error was detected and the
same block of information is re-sent. After all blocks are sent,
an EOT character signals transmission finished.
XMODEM CRC works the same way as XMODEM, except the CRC (Cyclic
redundancy check) algorithm, is a more sophisticated error
checking scheme. KERMIT is fast and uses full duplex (half duplex
transmits one direction at a time, full duplex transmits both
directions at the same time). It sends a whole stream of data
before stopping to see if there was an error. A more recent
protocol, YMODEM, uses XMODEM, CRC checking, and variable packet
sizes.
We hope this will bring some light to some of the questions we
have seen in the KIDS echo conference as well as give a better
understanding of some of the terms used in telecommunications.
If you have something you would like to share with the KIDS,
please send articles in the FidoNews standard format to Fido
1:288/525 for insertion in the KidsNews newsletter. Our kids will
be greatly appreciative. Thanks...
FidoNews 6-29 Page 13 17 Jul 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 14 17 Jul 1989
jim nutt
'the computer handyman'
1:114/30.0@fidonet (and proud of it!)
Some Questions
Just some food for thought....
Is it just me or has anybody else noticed that all the policy
wars are beginning to sound more and more like a bad soap
opera?
Have any of these people who are complaining actually
taken a look at the work it takes to be an *C?
What power does a *C REALLY have? I mean, there isn't really
anything there to get on a power trip over, now, is there?
Does Fidonet work for the vast majority of sysops?
Do the vast majority of sysops even care about the petty
bickering that is going on over Policy4?
Are alternative networks the solution? (I say no, if anything,
they are in worse shape than Fidonet)
Is the main reason for all the complaining about policy simply
a case of too much free time and too little real work?
Why in the world would anybody WANT to be a *C?!?!?
I have been in and out of Fidonet for years, I write software
for the net and enjoy participating in the echos. I also
firmly believe that Fidonet will survive in spite of itself.
After all, what is Fidonet but a loose collection of people who
let their computers run up huge phone bills? Fidonet sysops
are an incredibly diverse group, with interests ranging from
the ridiculous to the sublime... yet we all manage to
work together. Abiding by policy is a terribly simple thing to
do for the privilege (yes, it is a PRIVILEGE to have a node
number, NOT A RIGHT!) of being able to communicate with
thousands of people worldwide.
SO QUIT BELLYACHING AND START ENJOYING YOURSELVES AGAIN!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 15 17 Jul 1989
John Herro
1:363/6
FILE COMPRESSION - AN UPDATE
In my article "Will ZIP Replace ARC?" in FidoNews 611, I predict-
ed that ZIP will replace ARC as the compression standard for bul-
letin boards, because of the superior performance of ZIP.
However, in a Letter to the Editor in FidoNews 614, Robert Heller
mentioned that program performance isn't the only criterion.
Compatibility with non-DOS systems is important in some situa-
tions, and ARC 5.12 and ZOO 2.01 are the only compression pro-
grams at present that have been ported to a variety of systems.
Mr. Heller has a point. The rest of this article will discuss
only selection of a file compression program where compatibility
with non-DOS systems isn't a factor.
Since I wrote "Will ZIP Replace ARC?" I came across two other
file compression programs: DWC and LHARC. Despite its name,
LHARC isn't compatible with ARC. It came here from Japan and
seems to offer even greater file compression than ZIP, at some
cost in speed. It produces .LZH files, named for Lempel-Ziv com-
pression with adaptive Huffman coding. DWC was named for the
initials of its author, and it seems to be very rarely used.
Also, I was mistaken in the way I interpreted SEA's announcement
of ARC version 6 in FidoNews 607. Fortunately, this _IS_ still a
Shareware program, available on bulletin boards.
I benchmarked all seven programs on the computer I use at work,
identified only as a Printer Mate 12.5 MHz AT-compatible. (I
didn't test PKPAK, because it's the same as PKARC except for the
file extension.) Using each of the seven programs, I compressed
version 1.22 of my ADA-TUTR (Ada Tutor) program, which contains
34 files totaling more than 700K. The files are of a variety of
types and sizes. In all cases where several compression choices
were available, I selected maximum compression. Here are the re-
sults, sorted according to the amount of compression achieved:
COMPRESSED SECONDS SECONDS
PROGRAM BYTES TO PACK TO UNPACK
ARC 6.01 w/ ARCE 340,592 48 40
ZOO 2.01 323,320 49 52
PKARC 3.5 321,004 28 33
DWC A5.01 303,161 31 34
NoGate PAK 1.6 288,460 57 66
PKZIP 0.92 257,867 76 32
LHARC 1.13 234,470 130 73
FidoNews 6-29 Page 16 17 Jul 1989
The results show that, although PKZIP is significantly faster
than LHARC, the winner is clearly LHARC if maximum compression is
desired. For most bulletin boards, telephone charges are the
biggest expense, and therefore maximum compression is the most
important consideration. Also, LHARC is free, while PKZIP is
Shareware. Again I emphasize that I'm considering only cases
where compatibility with non-DOS systems isn't a factor.
We'll have to wait to see what version 1.0 of PKZIP will offer.
It is well worth paying for Shareware registration if the program
is superior, especially since file compression programs are used
so frequently. There are now a number of boards using PKZIP and
a number using LHARC. Mr. Heller is right: it's too early for
one system to be selected as the standard. Let's hope that one
compression method will prevail soon, so that there will again be
one standard. In the meantime, if you'll pardon the pun, it's a
Zoo out there!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 17 17 Jul 1989
Number nine, number nine, number nine, ...
Decentralizing the FidoNet <tm> Nodelist
Decentralizing FidoNet Power
Randy Bush, FidoNet 1:105/6
Think of FidoNet as a confederation of local nets. Forget
regions. Forget zones except as a way of saving telco charges by
concentrating messages and as a way to segment the total
nodelist. FidoNet returns to being a collection of local nets,
as it was before the region and zone hierarchies were added just
a few years ago.
In each zone there is an echo, call it ZnnnLIST, to which every
NC in that zone subscribes. In the North American zone, it is
Z001LIST. For the moment, do not worry about the security or
reliability of this echo, but things like sequence numbers,
checksums, and RSA public key signatures can be used to address
such problems (you are aware that RSA can be used to send a
validatable signature, yes?).
When an NC's net (or hub) segment undergoes significant change
(significant is that which would be likely to affect callers from
outside one's own net), then the NC posts a processed version of
that segment to the ZnnnLIST echo. The processing could be to
create a difference file, compress the file, maybe RSA signature
encode it, or whatever else is deemed necessary. A simplistic
scheme to start is a collection of lines of the form
add z:n/n <new node line>
del z:n/n
chg z:n/n <altered nodel line>
similar to the prerevolutionary nodediff file.
By placing the processed segment in the ZnnnLIST echo, each net's
nodelist segment(s) will be automatically distributed to all
other nets within that zone. This is the essence of the scheme.
Each NC automatically accumulates the changes to the zone
nodelist as they pass by in the ZnnnLIST echo for their zone.
Once a week (or two), they create a difference file against last
week's accumulated zone nodelist, and distribute this new
difference file within their local net. The nodes within the net
are thus insulated from all change, and do not have to change
their prerevolutionary batch files or programs.
The zonegates exchange periodic diffference files for their
zones, and make the lists (or difference files) of the other
zones available within their own, likely via the local ZnnnLIST
echo. Since the advent of zonegates, one need not know much
about a node in another zone, only the sysop's name and the node
number. So we could choose to reduce the size of lists we keep
of other zones, if the thought is not too scary.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 18 17 Jul 1989
Note that a first prototype of this methodology could be
constructed from existing software plus a few days of coding.
--------
Credits:
o FidoNet is a trademark of Fido Software and Tom Jennings.
o UucpNet/Internet distribute the maps via their equivalents of
echomail.
o This idea in this general form was first spoken of by Tom
Jennings in the FIDOBETA echo in May '89.
o Ken Ganshirt refocussed my attention on it when I whined
about the current FidoNet hierarchic power structure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 19 17 Jul 1989
View From The Trenches on Fidonet, *C's, etc.
Mark Earle, 1:160/50 (512)-850-9102 [HST] (NEC)
First, let me point out that the (NEC) doesn't mean much,
except that I've agreed to pay a somewhat outlandish fee to
Ma Bell for the privilege of sharing my echomail habit with
my net. "Being" *The* Net Echomail Coordinator is NOT a *C
type of position, at all. NC is the lowest recognized 'power'
position. Having said that...
I've followed the Jim Grubs/Net 154 situation, and note that,
in nodediff.188, Net 154 is back in the picture. Mostly, it
seems like a squabble, with lots of mis-quotes, doubts, and
private messages distributed publicly. I'm not sure, at this
point, that *anyone* can finger out what the 'facts' are.
Surely the original parties know. But the rest of us 'know'
only through conflicting accounts on various echoes. So I am
not going to comment on "the facts", whatever they may be.
I don't view Steve Bonine as "anything" yet, beyond the
elected ZC. Let's give him a chance. It appears Jim Grubs
will be back in the Nodelist, as is Net 154. That shows that
the parties are willing to back down, a bit, and decide to
Press On.
Hey-just what *is* FidoNet? Bob Hartman says it's different
to almost EVERY sysop. He's RIGHT. To me, it was a NEAT and
CHEAP way (compared to Compuserve) to get my daily
Information Fix, as a user, who started with a Model 100 at
300 baud (!). It has become a way for me to share my echomail
habit with others in my local area. It was not, at first, a
way to send private messages. That was a side benefit. Now
though, Netmail is an important part of my FidoNet
activities. Chicken and Egg, though; my Netmail habit grew as
a result of meeting interesting folks on the Echoes.
This view of mine may (should) differ from yours. What keeps
us all together is NOT IFNA. It IS technically compatible
mail software, and The NodeList, AND adherence to Policy.
The IFNA does *NOT* make The NodeList. That is done by each
Net Coordinator. This is a significant change from the 'early
days' when Fido 51 did all number assignments (and no, I
wasn't around then, this was gleaned from reading the
FidoNews). Now this assigning of numbers is done at many
different locations. IFNA only owns the copyright to the
whole nodelist as a compiled entity, not the individual
sections submitted by the NC's.
My *own* opinion is, that NETS and Individuals SHOULD NOT be
summarily deleted from the NODELIST. BUT, as a sysop, you are
agreeing to agree to current policy as a condition to joining
FidoNet.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 20 17 Jul 1989
Membership in FidoNet is based on agreeing with policy,
meeting ZMH, and running technically compatible mailer
software. If you don't like the current policy when you join,
then don't join. If a new policy pains you so much, simply
request your NC to drop you from FidoNet. Then, if you feel
you still want to participate in changing things, simply log
in as a user to the echoes being used as a media of change
and offer your input. But saying you won't abide by a policy,
doing "annoying" things, *AND* expecting to stay in FidoNet
are pretty unreal expectations. Also, there are *always* the
"other" nets.
Jim Decker: while a simple non-political nodelist is an
interesting idea, that in and of itself still won't make a
network. What makes FidoNet 'go' is that, I can find out the
rules, join, and have access to NetMail and EchoMail, using
pretty well defined, standard, procedures. Simply having a
list of 5000 bbb's running mailers, means I can mash the
button an send anyone direct a message; but removes the
routing, echomail, and other capabilities of FidoNet. To get
those, you'll have to mimic much of FidoNet. And I, in the
trenches of Texas, see no need for *me* to participate in
multiple nets. Not enough time to fully support the one as it
is! Now, maybe if I'd been excommunicated, I'd feel more
passion. Or maybe if in FidoNet longer, would be ready for a
change.
My NC, Tom Harper, *DID* send me policy4, ask for my
comments, and my vote, as he did with each sysop. His vote
was what the Majority of Sysops voted. I feel that I *DID*
have a voice. The NC also has, on *many* occasions, helped
me, particularly when trying to get OPUS and Binkley running.
It's nice to find a person willing to donate time, energy,
tips, *.bat files, etc. to help another sysop, for free. I
try and pass a little of that spirit on. And from what other
nets tell me, it's pretty much the same, except for a few
sour grapes nets, who don't want new members, change,
software, or anything that "rocks the boat". Along the way, a
new sysop may 'make a boo-boo' that'll cost me 25 cents in a
wasted LD call, or something; but If *I* had to *pay* $ for
each mistake I've made at the keyboard.... well, it's nice
that others in my net understand, and forgive, and we go on
and have fun.
When I first joined, my activities were "rocking the boat"
quite a bit. But Tom gave me advice, shared history, and
mostly, pointed me in directions where, as it turns out, I
drew my own conclusions, and agreed that the existing net
structure was pretty hard to beat. It may not be *exactly*
what it should be, but surely, at least *here* it's pretty
close.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 21 17 Jul 1989
While saying 'nice things' let me point out that, when the NC
was not available, the RC answered my queries quickly, on his
nickel, and to my satisfaction. Now, maybe it ain't that way
in your neck of the woods, but, overall, it seems to work
hereabouts.
Maybe y'all need to step back, WAY BACK, and instead of
yelling, kickin', and screaming, simply QUIT, and go find
something FUN to do with your computers. I understand EggHead
still has copies of Flight Simulator, and Adventure... :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 22 17 Jul 1989
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
MS-DOS Systems
--------------
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12n+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A TPBoard 5.2
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
D'Bridge 1.21* MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00
FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02
PRENM 1.47 XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10
SEAdog 4.51A* XlaxDiff 2.32 LHARC 1.13*
XlaxNode 2.32 MSG 3.3
MSGED 1.99
PK[UN]ZIP 0.92*
QM 1.0*
TCOMMail 2.2
TMail 1.11
TPBNetEd 3.2
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 2.3*
ZmailQ 1.09*
Apple Macintosh
---------------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Tabby 2.0* MacArc 0.03
Mansion 7.0 ArcMac 1.3
StuffIt 1.51
TImport 1.0
TExport 1.0
Timestamp 1.6
Tset 1.0.2
FidoNews 6-29 Page 23 17 Jul 1989
Timestart 1.1
Tally 1.1
Mehitabel 1.2
Archie 1.60
Numberizer 1.5c
MessageEdit 1.0
Commodore Amiga
---------------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Paragon 1.00+*
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
* Recently changed
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 24 17 Jul 1989
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
20 Jul 1989
Twentieth anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first moonwalk.
2 Aug 1989
Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
24 Aug 1989
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Oct 1989
First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.
11 Nov 1989
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KESHERnet Announcement
by Roger Froikin
1:108/185
KESHERnet Growing
KESHERnet(tm), a new international Jewish Affairs
communications network is now operating, currently linking
BBS's in several American communities with BBS's in London
and Israel.
Plans include expansion to every American city where there
is a Jewish community, affiliation of BBS's in major
European, Latin American, and Austrailian cities, and
expansion of services to Jewish computer enthusiasts and
their communities.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 25 17 Jul 1989
If you'd like information about KESHERnet, net-mail your
request to Roger Froikin, 1:108/185.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 26 17 Jul 1989
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 27 17 Jul 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
Name: _______________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________
City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________
Country: ____________________________________________________
Phone Numbers:
Day: ________________________________________________________
Evening: ____________________________________________________
Data: _______________________________________________________
Zone:Net/
Node.Point: ___________________________________________________
Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________
BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________
Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________
At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________
Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________
Are you a Sysop? _____________
Are you an IFNA Member? ______
FidoNews 6-29 Page 28 17 Jul 1989
Additional Guests: __________
(not attending conferences)
Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
handicapped, etc.)
______________________________________________________
Comments: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Costs How Many? Cost
--------------------------- -------- -------
Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______
($75.00 after July 15)
Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______
======== =======
Totals ................................ ________ _______
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
This form should be completed and mailed to:
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
PO Box 390770
Mountain View, CA 94039
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
registration.
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
information. For your own security, do not route any message
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
FidoNews 6-29 Page 29 17 Jul 1989
Master Card _______ Visa ________
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
Signature ______________________________________________________
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
signature.
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
register before July 15.
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic
transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage.
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and
request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location
and dates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-29 Page 30 17 Jul 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
_`@/_ \ _
| | \ \\
| (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
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 6-29 Page 31 17 Jul 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
