Copyright 1990, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only.
For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software.
FidoNews is published weekly by the System Operators of the
FidoNet (r) International BBS Network. It is a compilation of
individual articles contributed by their authors or authorized
agents of the authors. The contribution of articles to this
compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
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.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are
used with permission.
Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors
and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every
responsible submission received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
More LHARC Garbage ....................................... 1
Response to Mike Robeson's articles ...................... 4
FORMAL RETRACTION ........................................ 8
Hold My Hand, Honey ...................................... 9
2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR .................................... 11
LHARC and FidoNet ........................................ 11
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 13
Latest Software Versions ................................. 13
4. NOTICES .................................................. 17
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 17
FidoNews 7-38 Page 1 17 Sep 1990
More LHARC Garbage
---- ----- -------
Garner Miller
1:109/328
I'm always amazed at how inconsiderate people can be to
others in an organization without even realizing it. I truly
believe this is the case with Vince Perriello's LHARC fiasco:
I think he really did mean well. Unfortunately, his well-
meaning actions didn't go over well with FidoNet as a whole,
and as for machines that aren't MS-DOS, it's an even more
unpleasant story.
The FidoNews article specifications state very clearly
that authors should take into consideration that "Not everyone
in the world has an IBM PC." Jeez - you guys must not have
taken a look at that document for a long, long time if you've
forgotten such a policy. The simple truth is that there isn't
a reliable LHARC program available for the Macintosh. The only
two that I know exist (One I got through SDS; the other I just
happened to have) are both excruciatingly slow -- when they
work, that is. How often is that? For most, less than 10% of
the time. The other 90%+ the program simply crashes and dies,
forcing me to restart the machine.
I know, I know -- let me guess what's coming next:
"The algorithm is in the public domain, so anyone should be
able to port it." Let me clue you all in on a piece of news,
folks: =WE ARE NOT ALL PROGRAMMERS= To the developers, it
seems silly; perhaps even trivial. But to the average user,
it's the simple truth. I shouldn't have to write a program
to be able to participate in FidoNet. We already have a
standard that works -- when Fido people see ".ARC," they most
often think of the ARC 5.12 that we're all able to deal with.
It's taken many, many years for that to become a standard, and
now, all of a sudden, Vince Perriello decides on his own that
he doesn't care for it, so he has the right to change the
format in which the newsletter is distributed? Come on, guy.
That's simply not fair to the network.
I read with great interest Vince's article in FidoNews
734 -- almost with awe, in fact. He says, and I quote:
"Did your batch file break [because of the format change]? I
apologize. Should I have given you some warning so you could
fix it beforehand? Maybe. Would this advance notice have
been interpreted as license to start a NET_DEV-style
filibuster? I think so."
FidoNews 7-38 Page 2 17 Sep 1990
Great strategy, Vince: Do it quick and quiet -- that way,
when they find out, it'll be too late. I believe similar
strategies were used for bombing runs in WWII.
So, of course, as a recourse for those that can continue to
read the article without ripping the page in half, he
continues on, saying...
"However, before FidoNews went out in a .LZH file, I consulted
the International Coordinator, the Zone 1 Coordinator, and the
holder of the Trademark. Nobody cautioned me not to do it.
Nobody told me not to do it...Nobody felt the world would come
to an end if I made the change."
You know why nobody told you not to do it, Vince? Because you
didn't ask. You asked a grand total of three people, in a
network of many thousands. Those three people, as well as
yourself, run DOS systems. You never bothered to check with
the people who might not have their systems configured right.
You never bothered to check to see if any platforms don't have
LHARC readily available. You never bothered to check how your
decision would affect FidoNet. To use your phrase, "That's
intolerable."
Mr. Perriello concludes with, "This thread is now ended.
Let's get conversation regarding FidoNews back to what's in
it and not what it's in."
That's a good point - I'd love to quit the whole
converation. But a thread doesn't end when you say it does.
You've had your say. Let's give the other several thousand
THEIR turn to decide what to do with the newsletter.
The only reason I'm even able to read FidoNews these days
is because of the generousity of a member of Net 109 who
sends me ARC copies. (It could only be expected from such
a great group of people.) The thread is ended when FidoNet
comes to a solution on which we all agree. John Passaniti's
idea of a compression standard is an excellent one. Lucklily,
one has already been established: It's called SEA ARC 5.12.
If you don't like the .ARC extension, fine. Let's all
call our ARC 5.12 files ".5RC," ".A5C," or something along
those lines. Our NODELIST is officially distributed in ARC
5.12 format. Our NODEDIFF files each week are distributed
in that same format. It's only fitting that the FidoNews
files be distributed thes same way. There _IS_ a reason the
NODELIST files are in that ARC format: They know it's the
only format that all the members of FidoNet support. We
all have our favorite compressors. Mine happens to be one
called Compactor -- it can squeeze 65-70% off the NODELIST,
and about 90-93% off a TIFF file. Ever heard of it? Didn't
think so. Just as I hadn't heard of LHARC until a short
while ago.
FidoNews 7-38 Page 3 17 Sep 1990
So come on, Vince - don't just be sorry. Do something to
rectify the situation. We can all appreciate your "firmly
standing behind your decision." However, I know I'm not
alone in believing that changing your decision would be the
better move, if it would work for the ultimate good of
FidoNet. Believe me, it would.
Fidonews Volume 7, Number 35 carried no less than three
articles on environmental awareness by Mike Robeson of Fido
1:350/21.0. As some readers may be aware, I've long questioned
whether Fidonews should be used as a forum for topics that have
nothing to do with computers, communications, Fidonet or at
least somewhat related topics. About the only similarity
between recycling centers and echomail is that sometimes
they're both full of garbage (sorry, couldn't resist).
Anyway, one reason I oppose the use of Fidonews in this manner
is because it tends to give a one-sided view of any particular
issue... namely, that of the author of the article. In many
cases the "opposite side" may wish to have equal time, then
rebuttals follow rebuttals and pretty soon you get a 100K+
issue of which maybe 10K has anything to do with Fidonet. That
would not be objectionable except for the fact that NC's are
required by Policy to carry Fidonews and make it available to
those in their net, and if Fidonews starts carrying a lot of
unwanted material, we may see a revolt against that part of
Policy someday.
Actually, for a general interest publication I would not find
Mike's article particularly objectionable... he kept his
arguments clear and reasonable, and avoided the use of
questionable language. I have a lot of respect for him because
of that. At the same time, I do disagree with a few minor
points in those articles.
Part of the problem is that many groups (including SOME, but by
no means all of the groups involved in the environmental
movement) have "hidden" political agendas. These folks are not
so concerned with the environment as they are with amassing
political power for themselves! The problem is that some of
the information they disseminate may be inaccurate, or just
plain wrong (since they really don't care about the environment
anyway, their involvement in the cause is just a means toward
the end of giving them political clout), yet other groups will
pick it up and reprint it and reuse that information (in the
best tradition of recycling) and when the inaccurate
information is repeated often enough, the general public
becomes convinced that it must be true (because "I've heard it
so many different places!").
To give but one example, one of the points in Mike's articles
advises you to "Avoid plastic and polystyrene (styrofoam)
products that are neither reusable nor easily recyclable, such
as disposable diapers, lighters razors and plastic utensils.
(Plastics make up 25% of our garbage by volume.)"
FidoNews 7-38 Page 5 17 Sep 1990
Actually, plastic is one of the safest substances to put into a
landfill, because it is chemically inert. That is, it doesn't
break down after a few or even many years. This offends the
sensibilities of some folks, who have the idea that all
manufactured item should decay over time. But the fact of the
matter is that if you don't use plastic, you will likely
replace it with something that WILL decay over time. Now which
would you rather have in a landfill, something that stays put
and doesn't release any harmful substances into the ground
water, or something that's going to decay over the next few
years (and release who knows what into the water supply while
doing so)?
Consider the styrofoam container that you purchase a super size
hamburger in. In some areas the environmentalists have pushed
to outlaw these, probably because some organization that
they're networked with said that they should. Well, if you
want to take some visible action and impress folks with how
powerful your organization is, I suppose that's one way to do
it. And if the organization that's telling you to do this is
receiving some funding from the paper industry, who cares? But
the fact is that you could put thousands of those styrofoam
containers into a landfill and the runoff would never kill a
single fish. On the other hand, if you replace the styrofoam
containers with paper ones that are "biodegradeable" (that is
to say, they will rot) then the chemicals used to produce the
paper plus the chemicals in any inks or dyes used on the paper
will be released into the surrounding environment (sooner or
later). If I had to live next to a landfill, I'd much sooner
live next to the one filled with plastic, thank you.
Another point in Mike's article: "Use products that are made
to be used many times, such as cloth diapers, cloth napkins,
towels and rags, sponges, dishes, silver-ware, rechargeable
batteries, etc."
Now, while this is generally good advice, one could make the
point that using cloth diapers requires energy to get them
clean. Mothers aren't going down to the nearest stream and
beating them with rocks to clean them (if they did, someone
would no doubt complain about the discharge of raw sewage into
the stream). Instead, they usually put them into their
electric washing machine with plenty of detergent and bleach,
and then dry them in their electric dryer, increasing the
consumption of whatever fuel source their local electric
utility is using ("Dirty" coal, perhaps?) and the wastewater
containing the detergent (Phosphates, anyone?) and bleach go
into the local wastewater treatment facility and eventually
back into the groundwater supply. I should add that we've used
cloth diapers with all our children (even before it was
fashionable to do so), but I just think that the claim that
they are "better for the environment" is a bit dubious.
FidoNews 7-38 Page 6 17 Sep 1990
Oh, and most rechargeable batteries contain nickel and cadmium.
Cadmium is a heavy metal, and quite toxic if the battery ever
gets crushed in a landfill (and NiCads DO wear out eventually).
I'm not saying NiCads aren't safe when properly used, just that
they have their own disposal problems.
Then there's the advice that we should "Support a bottle bill
that establishes a deposit on beverage containers." That would
be great if it stopped there (we have such a law in Michigan,
and it's done wonders to reduce the litter along the highways)
but then it goes on to say "Bottle bills that call for
rewashing and reusing bottles are superior to traditional
bottle bills." I have to believe that Mike has never worked in
a store and seen the condition that some bottles come back in.
You see bottles containing all kinds of foreign substances,
some identifiable (cigarette butts and ashes) and some not.
You even occasionally see something really disgusting (dead
rodents or worse). I sure would not want to drink out of such
a bottle no matter how well it's been cleaned, but the point is
that to get such bottles clean enough to re-use, you'd probably
need to wash them with very hot water, detergents, bleach, or
some other strong chemical to TRY and cleanse all traces of any
foreign substances. And, of course, that wastewater has to go
somewhere.
In the article on hazardous waste in the home, it lists such
items as "Cleaners; Bleach, degreasers, spot removers, rug
cleaners, disinfectants, toilet cleaners, oven cleaners, drain
cleaners, septic tank cleaners." Yes, these items are hazardous
if used incorrectly. Yes, they should be kept out of the reach
of children. Yes, you should read the label directions
carefully before using them. But, these are all items which
improve our quality of life and the overall health of our
citizens. Consider, for example, that bleach is used precisely
because it is effective in killing germs and bacteria that
carry disease. I am concerned that often "environmentalists"
will attempt to get a substance banned or restricted without
considering the negative health impact that the restricted
availability of such products may bring. This is also true of
insecticides - many environmentalists would like to see these
banned altogether without even considering the increase in
disease and the detrimental impact on our food supply that an
outright ban would bring about.
I think many in the environmental movement are listening to the
extremists in some cases, with the danger that if they go too
far out, the average citizen will reject their message
entirely. Any time you push too intensely for any cause, there
is always the danger of a backlash (and law or no law, you
can't easily regulate what the average citizen does in his own
home. For example, if you pass laws that say that certain
substances can't be sent out in the garbage collection, then
some of them will wind up getting flushed down the toilet!).
You really need the VOLUNTARY cooperation of citizens to make
it all work, and that won't happen if the average person has a
mental picture of environmentalists as some sort of extremist
FidoNews 7-38 Page 7 17 Sep 1990
nuts (unfortunately, there are a few who probably are very
deserving of that label!).
By the way, I'm not totally knocking Mike's article. There
were some very good hints in there. But is this topic
appropriate for Fidonews? I have to wonder. In any case, I
hope that everyone will understand that there is often two (or
more) sides to every issue, and that honorable people can
disagree on the best way to accomplish a particular goal,
particular where a topic as sensitive as the environment is
concerned.
2 Weeks ago, I wrote a message in FidoNews requesting that
people send cards to Craig Shergold, a boy with a brain tumor
who would like to get into the Guiness book of world records
for the most get-well cards received.
As it turns out, Craig has already made it into a yet-to-
be-published edition of Guiness, and the amount of cards
which continue to pile in are a *major* problem for
their home and their mail service.
Therefore, *PLEASE REPLACE* any bulletin about sending
cards to Craig with a bulletin stating *NOT* to send cards.
I wish to appologize to all of you who made a special effort
to help out Craig, and express my thanks to the sysops who
crashed netmail to me to fill me in on the real story.
Hello folks! Thought you got rid of me didn't ya! Hee! Nope,
I'm back again to ruffle some feathers.
What shall we talk about this week? WAIT! I know! How about
*ME*! Yeah, great idea KB ...
Seems that I'm famous now. Yep, some philosopher named Mike
Riddle wrote an "open letter" to me a couple Snoozes ago,
kinda spankin' me on the heinie about me backing up Lighthorse
Harry Lee and Vince Perrier over the INFAMOUS, DEADLY
LHARC-SNOOZE SCANDAL!
Oh don't worry KB fans! I'm not gonna beat the guy up. He's
entitled to his opinion (I guess). But I'll just say this...
You don't have to be a programmer to be in Fidonet. You don't
even have to be SMART (God knows there are plenty of those in
the nodelist). But hey, if you had to get somebody to set up
your software for you, and if fixing a batch file is a big
deal for you, and you bitch that somebody changed something
and complicated your life, then HEY... Time for a new hobby.
Sorry Riddler, this is a hobby not a baby sitters club ...
Oooh. Know what we're going start some dung flying about
now? ARC 7.0, that's what! Yeah...
Looks like Thom Headbanger, in an effort to keep up with the
Joneses, or the Katz's as it were, unleashed a new version of
ARC that you gotta BUY. Ain't no shareware deal HERE,
Virginia. And already some people are whining about it
"breaking" other compression programs. 'Cuz PAK thinks it one
of ITS files, or whatever the deal is, I'm not really sure.
Again, B.F.D. !!! The situation is SIMPLE folks. If someone
sends you ARCmail compressed with this new gizmo, and you
didn't ask for it, and don't WANT it, then COMPLAIN.
Otherwise, KWITYER BYCHIN. This ARC 7 or ARC PLUS or
ARC-a-noid or whatever it is thing is no different that any
OTHER compression arrangement. That means, the only people
that should be using ANYTHING other than the officially
accepted Fidonet ARC standard, are those that WANT to, and
have AGREED with each other to use it, them, those, whatever.
ROB ECKERT tells me that since I plugged his APINET in the
Snooze, he's been inundated with requests for node numbers and
wants to choke me. Hee! Well, NICE JOB ROB.
FidoNews 7-38 Page 10 17 Sep 1990
Oh, and sports fans... The Giants and the Bengals will be in
the Super Bowl, so save yourself the $$$ moving messages
around America suggesting otherwise.
And finally, the NOW award (Nitwit of the Week). This week's
award goes to Mark Howard, NC 260. Why??? Because there really
isn't a nitwit that stands head and shoulders above the rest
this week, so Mark will be our default Nitwit in the absence
of a real good one. I mean, Mahatma Ravsik can only get so
many awards in one month ....
=================================================================
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
=================================================================
Dear Editor,
This is a response to recent controversies about lharc use in
Fidonet. For the record, I fully supported SEA in its battle
with Phil Katz since ARC has always been primarily a commer-
cial product despite its being available to Fidonet on a no
charge basis (until this summer).
Now, the latest version of Arc is no longer freely available.
In my opinion, it is time to change the standard since it is
against Policy to support one commercial product to the harm
of any other.
I do think that there must be some consideration given to the
following "requirements", however. First, the utility chosen
should be public domain, it should run well under multi-task-
ing programs, it should be "portable" to other platforms, op-
erating systems, etc., and it should require as little change
as possible for the grunt sysop including working with all or
most currently used utilities.
Both ARC and PKZIP fail the public domain requirement. Both
are commercial products requiring either purchase or a regis-
tration fee.
ZOO and PAK may (or may not be) public domain, but they fail
the compatibility test in that they make effective multitask-
ing with DoubleDos on a 640 K machine impossible due to their
large memory requirements in the packing mode.
LHARC is public domain and source is available so it can eas-
ily (ha ha) be ported to different operating systems. But it
too fails the multitasking test on 640K systems, it would not
be compatible with Xlaxnode, Parselst, etc. since those util-
ities assume use of Arc, etc. Besides, it is as slow as sin
compared to other packers.
So what is the answer? How about a utility that's been used
by many (if not most) in Fidonet for years? Of course, I am
referring to ARCA and ARCE by Vern Buerg and Wayne Chin. It
is fast, freely available, and (since it assumes the presence
of earlier, source available versions of ARC) portable to the
other platforms commonly used in Fidonet. Some programs will
require a very minor change (Xlaxnode comes to mind), but the
file formats and naming conventions will remain the same. It
will not require changing multitudinous batch files for those
lazy sysops (like me) who tend to suffer batchfile prolifera-
tion constantly. In fact, all any text editor should be able
to be told to search for and replace ARC A with ARCA and also
to search for and replace ARC E with ARCE. Thus, two passes
through the batchfiles should be all that's required. Grant-
FidoNews 7-38 Page 12 17 Sep 1990
ed, it is not as efficient as Lharc, but it makes up for that
deficiency with speed, memory usage, etc. as far as this mail
mover is concerned.
Finally, it will not render Fidonet and its sysops hostage to
the whims of a commercial author. Many drivers choose to use
U.S. Route 1 in areas where I-95 is a toll road. Sysops ought
to have the same choice.
Anyway, that's my opinion for what it's worth. It and seven-
ty five cents will get you a cup of coffee in most places.
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.
5 Oct 1990
21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
6 Nov 1990
First anniversary of Van Diepen Automatiseert, 2:500/28
14 Nov 1990
Marco Maccaferri's 21rd Birthday. Send greetings to him at
2:332/16.0
1 Jan 1991
Implementation of 7% Goods and Services Tax in Canada. Contact
Joe Lindstrom at 1:134/55 for a more colorful description.
16 Feb 1991
Fifth anniversary of the introduction of Echomail, by Jeff Rush.
7 Oct 1991
Area code 415 fragments. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
will begin using area code 510. This includes Oakland,
Concord, Berkeley and Hayward. San Francisco, San Mateo,
Marin, parts of Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
Islands will retain area code 415.
1 Feb 1992
Area code 213 fragments. Western, coastal, southern and
eastern portions of Los Angeles County will begin using area
code 310. This includes Los Angeles International Airport,
West Los Angeles, San Pedro and Whittier. Downtown Los
Angeles and surrounding communities (such as Hollywood and
Montebello) will retain area code 213.
1 Dec 1993
Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.
5 Jun 1997
David Dodell's 40th Birthday
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
