Copyright 1991, 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 and for the Members of the
FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. 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. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
WorldPol ... A good excuse to start on Policy6 ........... 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 5
WorldPol is no nonsense .................................. 5
WorldPol: Not Perfect, but the Best so Far ............... 11
Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator Election ..................... 12
R U Canajan Eh? The CanaChatter Echo .................... 13
Zone 1 FidoCon '91 Update ................................ 15
The Unfulfilled Promise of Fidonet ....................... 22
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 27
Latest Software Versions ................................. 27
And more!
FidoNews 8-14 Page 1 8 Apr 1991
For the past two weeks I have been trying to figure out just how
to tell you what I think about the new Policy proposal. The exact
method that would best serve my need to get it all off my chest,
and your need to figure out whether my comments were best ignored
or heeded.
Before I push you to the point of making that decision regarding
my words, please at least heed this advice: read the proposed
Policy carefully, read the Policy it replaces, and do some "what
if" scenarios. Consider some situations where someone was kept
from doing something by present Policy; determine whether you
feel that person should be able to do that thing; see if the new
Policy addresses it. Consider the additional freedom of action
offered by the new Policy. Good or Bad? Look at what effect the
changes will have on the day-by-day operation of the net. Do
they seem to be positive or negative? Discuss it with others.
Pass on your advice to your NC. Be a part of this process.
OK. Thanks. Now I'll cut to the chase.
Worldpol seems to me to be a well-intentioned effort to correct
a few perceived flaws in Policy 4. For some reason, the
resultant document seems to have basically started from a blank
sheet of paper, without considering the reason for any of those
sections of Policy 4 which demonstated those perceived flaws.
Without going completely Luddite on you, let me still point out
that Policy1-Policy4 seem to have been a fairly good set of
rules. After all, they got us here. I don't see why all of a
sudden the entire fabric needed to be torn out in favor of a new
one. Perhaps I'm just not farsighted enough. Hell, some mornings
I can't even remember the name of the kid who played Pugsley.
Right up front, let me tell you what the biggest problem with
this document is. There are a lot of noises swirling around
these days with words like "liability" and "punitive damages" in
them. This document blows enough of the structure of FidoNet
away to make a number of lawyers very rich and send a few
coordinators to a new home in a cardboard box. The fact that it
was written by a person for whom English is a second language
(although his command of it is better than many Americans of my
acquaintance) really doesn't hold a single drop of water in a
court of law. To add to this problem, the disclaimer stating
that fact is in a section that will be deleted should the vote
be in favor of ratification. Sic transit NC's.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 2 8 Apr 1991
Next problem: the concept of "areas" is diluted to the point of
being meaningless. This works great in combination with another
feature which I'll address in a minute. But for now, consider
this: there is nothing in Worldpol to keep someone from being RC
of every region in a Zone. All that person has to do is maintain
a node in every region, which is perfectly allowable under the
new Policy -- and that makes him/her part of the "area" which
she/he would be coordinating, and eligible for election. Yeah,
sure, that could never happen. And O-rings never burn through and
the Libyans are only manufacturing pharmaceuticals.
How about the local net policies? Did anyone notice that local
net policy is not subordinate to regional policy? But the RC
has to deal with policy disputes. Now that's fair, isn't it?
Harry has already mentioned a number of the things that bother
me most about this one. I'll bet anyone five dollars that there
will be at least one white-only net in North America by the end
of the year if this policy passes. I'll bet anyone ten dollars
that Zone 4 will have communists-not-allowed nets and regions in
less time than that.
Would the Z4C care to comment on whether Cubans should be
allowed in FidoNet? And how convenient it will be to have a
policy that lets you tell them where to stick their modems?
Has anyone heard from Russia recently, and will prospective
members of FidoNet have to show a prison tattoo or a burned-up
party card to join?
What is a Western-style democracy for the purposes of Worldpol?
The United States? Let's put that to the test. I'll send in a
voter registration form to Duluth, Minnesota. I'll say that while
I actually live and work in New Hampshire, I like Minnesota best
and I want to vote and pay taxes there. I bet New Hampshire will
go along with it, too.
Here's another thing: There is a substantial body of legislation
and judicial action which helps to dampen the "tyranny of the
majority" in the United States. This takes the form of
representation in local governments by the minority party,
affirmative action quotas, and many other things which if just
left to a popular vote would probably fail resoundingly. Ask the
people of Boston or Yonkers if they favor busing. If the United
States worked like Worldpol, there would be no such thing.
If not the United States, then perhaps El Salvador? Haiti? Cuba?
(Forget I said Cuba, I just remembered that Communists live
there) This is an important point. You can't just say "Western
standards" and expect that to suffice.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 3 8 Apr 1991
Worldpol says that FidoNews is the official newsletter. It says
that members of an area (whatever that is) can vote not to
receive it. Did anyone mention that since FidoNews is the
official newsletter, the *C is liable in any case involving
prior notice, if FidoNews was not provided? If the person who
did not receive that prior notice (and because of the "official
newsletter" clause, FidoNews is the only place that has any
legal standing) in FidoNews wasn't in favor of dropping it, the
*C loses and some lawyer gets rich.
Why didn't the authors didn't put something in Worldpol saying
that I didn't have to accept FidoNews submissions from an area
that has voted not to receive it? After all, why should the rest
of the net have to pay to move, or to read, something submitted
by someone who never intends to read it her/himself?
Most of my other objections have been voiced equally well or
better by others. I'm glad to be able to say that. I'm not a
lone voice in the wilderness. Perhaps I'm one of a few hundred
such voices, but I suspect the real numbers are very different.
Hello, Jack? Jack Decker? I have an answer to your question from
last week. Why weren't people such as myself involved in the
effort to pull Worldpol from the ashes of Policy4? Perhaps
because unlike yourself, we saw no ashes.
There is some need for improvement in the document, but it
neither needs nor deserves to be discarded just because you and
a few dozen others don't understand why it is the way it is.
Discussions leading to corrective surgery would have garnered a
great deal more interest from myself and others than what we
observed to be the case: the proposition that the basis of
FidoNet's "new world order" was the scrapping of previous
documents and a fresh start with fresh minds, unencumbered by
outmoded views. In other words, smart young turks at work, old
fogies stay out!
So many of us did (BTW, Harry asks me to note that he sent
comments after each published revision to his NC, RC and ZC).
Since the net continued to work all the time you guys were
plugging away at this, we figured there was no need to fix
anything right away. I still feel that way. Almost. I think that
Worldpol needs a LOT of fixing before it should be adopted.
Democracy in FidoNet is a great idea. But just like every great
thing, it's best in moderation. Worldpol proposes too much of
that good thing. We'll all get tummy aches if we have it.
Worldpol is not a keeper. Throw it back and let it mature a bit.
Folks Who Oppose Democracy In FidoNet Are Nervous But...
WORLDPOL IS NO NONSENSE
A lot has been said about WorldPol. Both recently and before.
WorldPol was first released in October of 1989 and published
on FidoNews. Since then, all comments by anyone interested
were happily received and considered. The document was
re-released in 7 other opportunities as changes were been
proposed and critics were made. All versions have been
published on FidoNews.
It is the first time in FidoNet history that a policy document
is written by the network's sysops and not just by coordinators.
The first time that anybody interested was able to
participate and actually invited to do so.
It is the first time that democracy is proposed for FidoNet.
In an article by Harry Lee on a past number of FidoNews, he
says that WorldPol changes too many things at one time. Whereas
it's a fact that many things are changed, I can well sit and
argue if it's really "too many things". I would rather say
"many", but never "too many".
The comparison of WorldPol and Policy4 as two mailers with
different codes and different protocols does only to the purpose
of creating a bigger confusion. Things are not really like that.
And the contradiction comes later in the same text: the author
subsequently claims that WorldPol uses a lot of Policy4 wording,
which is true.
Policy4 besides being an evolution of Policy3 as Harry likes to
say, is also a degeneration of the latter.
How did the authors know that FidoNet (and by that I refer to
"the sysops members of FidoNet") wanted a system of elections
analogous of the most popularly known dictatorial regimes in the
world?
Yes, that's what Policy4 proposes: John ZC elects Jim RC, Peter
RC and Paul RC. And then Jim RC, Peter RC and Paul RC elect John
ZC! Added to this is the fact that then Jim RC, Peter RC and
Paul RC go and choose their respective regions' NCs.
In between, where are the FidoNet sysops? They are right there:
forgotten and ignored. But according to those that defend
Policy4, the poor sysops like to be forgotten and ignored!
Excusez-moi, but I simply don't buy that.
Democracy is probably the point that, along with "geography",
doesn't let WorldPol's most staunch opponents sleep at night.
So let's talk about "geography:"
I am not a supporter of non-geographic nets and never was. In
Zone-4, where I belong, there aren't any non-geographic networks
at all.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 6 8 Apr 1991
But I know very well that across the Ocean, in Europe, things
are different. The two biggest regions there: Holland and
Germany, have non-geographic nets.
Should I, from Buenos Aires, tell the guys in Antwerpen and
Hamburg that what they do is wrong? I rather chose to sit and
watch. It is their experience and if they do it that way, it's
maybe because that is the best for them. It does not and will not
in any way, harm the rest of FidoNet... So why should I complain?
Why should anyone complain?
I will probably support establishing geographic restrictions
in Zone-4, when we write our Zone policy. I believe it will be
better that way for us but why in the world should I pretend
to indicate somebody thousands of miles away what to do?
Telling many strangers what to do is it precisely what Policy4
intends to do, and unquestionably fails. Policy4 is not enforced
in many parts around the world because it is unenforceable!
And this does not only refer to smallZone-4, it also refers to
Zone-2, Zone-5 and Zone-6.
Not aiming at describing all the reasons why Policy4 is not fully
enforced worldwide, let me just mention a few assorted examples:
. Zone-2: overlapping nets, according to geography, in several
regions.
. Zone-4: we don't use English for any of our 'official stuff'
as we use instead Spanish and Portuguese. All the
coordinators are elected by the common sysops, not
appointed as Policy4 establishes.
. Zone-5: single-node regions because of political motivations.
. Zone-6: at least one region officially charges a fee to member
sysops according to its regional policy document.
One thing particularly annoying on the text by Harry Lee is when
it says that "the problems with WorldPol are rooted in an
absolute lack of understanding of history." I see it as a token
of the arrogance used throughout the article to attack this
independently-written policy proposal.
As painful as it is to me, it gives those around me yet another
reason to say that the fact that WorldPol emerges from the
Third World goes along with the fact that Policy4 is yet
another example of "imperialismo yanqui". No, I don't coincide
with that point of view and will not. But it is sad that some
people think that it is correct to impose procedures on others
without bothering to inform themselves about what are the
necessities of those others.
Policy4 was written in North America by North Americans, and
while Europeans did not participate or support it, we Latin
Americans were denied a say. And Zone-4 did exist even before
Policy4 was approved.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 7 8 Apr 1991
I will refer quickly to the list of credits: ALL the persons
that in one way or another -including Bill Bolton- contributed
to the document, usually by questioning it and proposing
changes, were listed.
The reason why Thom Henderson, Harry Lee and maybe others were
not included regards to the fact that the parts WorldPol have
in common with Policy4 were extracted from "FidoNet's current
policy document" and not from an article written by either of
them. Policy4 does not indicate who wrote it and one is not
supposed to know the list by heart.
Let me now refer to a few other points made by Lee:
- Different Social Orientation
It is NOT true that WorldPol was written by a fundamentally
different society, Zone-4. WorldPol contains input from people
from all over the world. And that is surely more appropriate for
an international network than a group just from North America.
It is not a problem of "Zone sizes" as Europe played a big
role on WorldPol development too. And there isn't a zone around
the world containing so many countries and different languages
as Zone-2.
When Harry Lee says that Zone-4 is the writer of WorldPol he is
just helping to confuse, because the statement is anything but
reality.
- A case of tail wagging the dog?
Again, this is not a case of minority (Zone-4) trying to impose
a document on the majority (Zone-1). Since the sysops without
a coordinator title were never consulted in Zone-1 with regard
to Policy, is he referring to a voteless majority?
On the other hand and again I say it, even Zone-1 and Zone-3 are
represented on WorldPol. And there is probably more from Zone-2
on WorldPol than from myself or others in Zone-4.
FidoNet Latin America hasn't been around since the times of
TJ's Fido version 8 but it has for almost four years. And Zone-4
has existed within FidoNet since before Policy4 was adopted.
Now: is sustaining democratic values a symptom of adolescence?
- Mediator Insanity
The above referred title Mr. Lee has used is already prejudice.
The mediation mechanisms proposed in WorldPol simply state that
the natural mediator should be the coordinator of the smallest
structure that contains accuser and accused. Is that so insane?
Antidemocratic? Give me a break!
FidoNews 8-14 Page 8 8 Apr 1991
- Coordinator Requirements
Harry Lee poses a very significative question when referring to
a supposed problem here: "what happens if a net sets up
requirements that cannot be attained or sustained?"
This simply shows how much he trusts the criteria of the common
FidoNet sysop member. If a net's policy is written by the members
of a net, would they self-impose unattainable or unsustainable
requirements?
Do you really believe this is likely to happen?
- Elimination of FidoNews Requirement
"The tyranny of the majority strikes again" he said, and I agree.
Official notices, to my understanding, are published on the
nodelist itself (on the nodediffs), which is mandatory.
Problem with FidoNews: while it costs $0.30 a week to a sysop
(*C) in Anytown,USA to get it, it costs $30 a week to a sysop
in Lima,Peru, where international communication prices are now
skyrocketing, and costs around $10 a week to a sysop (*C) in my
own country or Brazil.
I believe that in some countries in Eastern Europe, they don't
even have direct-dial to the United States to be able to file
request FidoNews if they wanted to. Some other sysop around there
mentioned once that though he could dial direct to the United
States, the telco bills him $30 for each minute.
How can we dictate that every net in the world should spend that
money for something apart from technical operation of the
network? What happens if -like happened to us under
hyperinflation a number of times- we simply can't afford it? Are
we violating policy? Are we out?
- Unanimous Election of IC
Here's the requested explanation:
The IC should be someone 'okay for all zones'. That's the purpose
of the unanimous vote and the majority for removal. The ZCC acts
as a council of Zone Coordinators. If there is no agreement,
there is no IC and the ZCC is in charge.
Having the IC as executive allows the possibility of not having
to vote each decision that reaches the top of the coordinator
structure. But he who decides must be an 'okay figure' to all the
zones he represents.
Remember that the ZCC members are the ones that process the
nodelist and ultimately the network's highest authority. The IC
coordinates ZCC work and executes what is decided at the top
level, but -I hope it doesn't happen- if the ZCC decides to have
no IC, it will have to determine how things work at that level
and probably vote on each decision instead of letting an IC
decide.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 9 8 Apr 1991
- Transitional Problems
I don't agree with Harry's claim that it created contradiction.
WorldPol reads clearly:
---start of quote---
7.3 Transition to a 'Worldwide Policy environment'
After the approval of this Worldwide Policy, the previously
existing policy will still be in effect for the Zone level until
the approval of a new Zone policy, according to the methods
provided in this document.
All the procedures introduced by this Worldwide Policy document
adjourn the procedures existing in the previous policy document.
---end of quote---
... it says ALL the procedures ADJOURN the existing in the
previous policy document. Clear as water.
- Not Final And Yet We're Voting On It?
You are voting on what you are reading. That leaves no doubts.
This document is something concrete and, if approved, will
probably be modified by the network's sysops in the future, as
FidoNet progresses. This, according to the prescriptions on the
document itself for updating.
As final words, I would like to remind some, explain to others,
that WorldPol is an independent effort originated in the need of
a worldwide enforceable policy.
This fact has been disregarded and ignored by much of the past
and current individuals rejecting it nowadays.
I don't know what will come up from the vote, but in one way
or another, they know there is a group on FidoNet that advocates
to democracy and the rights of every sysop in the network.
These rights include the possibility of the groups of sysops
in different parts of the world to organize and operate
according to their customs and not to which some intend to
dictate from some faraway place.
This ideal, today expressed by the current policy proposal
WorldPol, is likely to win. Sooner or later. The sooner, the
better for FidoNet.
Pablo Kleinman
Democratically Elected Zone-4 Coordinator
April 5, 1991
A very important discovery seems to have been made in FidoNet,
and we have read a lot about it in the last three issues of
FidoNews: WORLDPOL ISN'T PERFECT. Gee, you don't need to be
Stephen Hawking to find that out: I could have told you.
WorldPol is far from perfect, but it's also far better than
Policy 4, and that's what counts in the current situation. It
was written to change the aspects of the Policy 4
administration that require immediate solution, not to be THE
policy document until the end of times.
That's why it makes it much easier for the ones proposing new
policy documents to get them voted. It was very tough to get
WorldPol voted: we had to beat the whole boureaucracy intalled
by Policy 4. If WorldPol doesen't become Policy 5, people
proposing other documents will have the same trouble that we
overcame. And they might not be that lucky.
There are some things in WorldPol that may need changing. The
language IS vague, granted. It's a pity that nobody pointed that
out before the final version was released for vote. Maybe point
operators should be considered different from other users, and
maybe there's no such thing as a "Western Democracy". What
won't change in OUR Policy 6 project is the base of WorldPol:
democratic and universal vote. But that might not be so in
other Policy 6 proposals. If the majority of the network
doesen't want to vote, then be it. Some say it will be
difficult to count the votes of the whole network. That is (at
least) a silly argument. I remember having voted on the IFNA
affair, and no big problems arised.
Democracy should be the next step in the evolution of FidoNet. It's
strange that it will come so late in an organization that was born in
America. Maybe that's because people there are so used to democracy,
that they fail to understand how vital it is. You have to lose it to
really know how much it's worth. I lived in a non-democratic regime
for too long, and now that we regained democracy in our country, I'd
like to have it in FidoNet, too. Let's give it a shot, OK?
Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator Election Final Results
George Peace
1:1/0
We finally made it to the end of the Z1EC election. I learned
a little more about "democracy" in FidoNet. I certainly hope the
experience was one of growth. Here are the final votes by region:
Davis Nissan None Other
Region ----- ----- ----- -----
Joe Lindstrom
1:134/55 @FidoNet
99:9305/55 @EggNet
201:5500/55 @MetroNet
The CanaChatter Echo
====================
Some time ago, we began an echo conference with the tagname
CANACHAT. The idea was a general-discussion echo, but with a
topic of "Canada" (you know, that wasteland to the north?).
Pretty much anything is acceptable, just so long as it has
something to do with the Great White North. Conversations have
ranged from the Gulf War (and Canada's rather limited partici-
pation in it) to capital punishment to Star Trek. Barring the
latter topic, the signal-to-noise ratio is quite high and I
think you will find it an excellent forum to air your views and
to debate others on theirs.
This echo, up until now, has been essentially a private echo
with my system as the top-star. A few systems have been
polling me regularly for this and other echoes, and we have
managed to build quite a following. However, as traffic levels
increased, so did phone bills for the systems pulling it in
directly from my system. I have in mind, specifically, Russell
McOrmond of 1:163/109 and Richard Hatfield of 1:342/16, who
have spent some hard-earned CanuckBucks so that they and their
Nets could participate. In Russell's case, he was in turn
feeding other nets, so he was sending traffic two ways.
So we decided to go to the backbone. My primary concern
here was the fact that FidoNet isn't the only network that is
carrying this echo. After speaking with John Souvestre, the
REC for Region 19, about this at length, we now feel that the
time is right. With John's help, we've managed to jump through
all the required hoops, including listing the echo in ELIST and
getting the support of two REC's. In short, the echo may be on
the backbone by the time you read this.
I've had several sysops in the U.S. netmail me in regards to
getting a connection to CanaChatter. I'm sorry to all of you
that wrote and didn't get a reply back from me: had I done so,
my local phone company would probably have sent me a letter of
sincere thanks! They'd address it to the poorhouse... anyways,
the response has been rather overwhelming. I've had letters
from Canadians who are now living in the U.S. and want CANACHAT
on their systems, sort of as a link "back home". One fella who
wrote me was doing so on behalf of a couple of users of his,
and goodness knows how they found out about the echo. They
wanted it, he couldn't care less but could I connect him?
FidoNews 8-14 Page 14 8 Apr 1991
Hopefully this new backbone linkup will solve all of these
problems, and alleviate some rather expensive weekly
connections for Richard and Russell. A tip of the toque to you
both for making CANACHAT what it is today!
I should also point out that CANACHAT will be available to
you folks in OtherNets (TM) via authorized zonegates. Systems
in either EggNet or MetroNet may optionally come straight to my
system (if they can handle the expensive of 20-40 messages a
day), I am "zone-gating" the echo to these two nets already and
adding you will be a simple matter. It will, however, be
cheaper for you and technically simpler if you can get the echo
via a closer echo hub.
A final few words on the echo itself: although I was the
original moderator of the echo, I've passed that duty on to
those better able to monitor it on a daily basis. Since Canada
has two official languages, English and French, CANACHAT has
two official moderators, one for each language. Messages in
either language are ACCEPTABLE (note that this is one of the
few backbone echoes where this holds true). Your CANACHAT
moderators are:
English/Anglais: Racey Sealock of/du 1:134/42
99:9305/42
201:5500/42
French/Francais: Peter Donald of/du 1:249/126
FidoCon '91 VIP Membership $104 US*
Banquet 25 US
===
$94 US
* After July 15, $169
*NEW*
A "No Frills", good from 9am to 6pm, for Seminar and
Dealers Rooms ONLY membership (no Convention Hospitality
Suite access or ticket for the SuperSystem Drawing) is
available for $45 US for the three days or $20 US per day.
Full credit can be applied to a VIP membership if you elect
to upgrade.
*NEW*
A "Supporting Membership" for those unable to attend, is
available for $25 US. Supporting members Will receive the
progress reports and program book.
Hotel: Sheraton Lakewood
690 Union Blvd
Lakewood, CO
(303) 987-2000
Rooms:
Single/Double $59 US per night
Adjoining Rooms (Pseudo-Suite) 118 US
Triple/Quad 78 US
Adjoining Rooms (Pseudo-Suite) 156 US
Suites from 450 US
FidoCon '91 is a limited attendance event.
Guests of Honor:
Tom Jennings -- FidoCon '91 Guest of Honor
Tim Pozar -- Gateway Guru
FidoNews 8-14 Page 16 8 Apr 1991
Ray Gwinn -- The Fossil master his self
Vince Perriello -- President of Bit Bucket Software &
publisher of FidoNews.
Alan Applegate -- VICE-President of Bit Bucket, Writer of
the infamous Binkley Docs & Technical
Support for eSoft.
Bob Hartman -- From Bloom County to you.
Phil Becker -- CEO of eSoft .. publisher of TBBS/TDBS/TIMS
Steve Jackson -- CEO of Steve Jackson Games .. Publisher of
GURPS CYBERPUNK and center of Secret
Service attention for over 8 months.
John Perry Barlow -- Internet Guru, one of the founders of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Guests of Dishonor:
Terry Travis -- Vince and Alan's prime target in the SYSOP
Mud pie Fight
Those indicating they will be attending:
Tom Tcimpids
Several notable writers of computer columns
Several popular Science fiction authors
Mitch Kapor Founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Invited and not yet committed:
Steve Wozniack The WOZ, one of the founders of Apple
Convention Hospitality Suite by:
Kevin "DOC" McNeil and the FidoNet COOKING echo {newsgroup}
Featuring: Seadog Casserole, Zip-Tarts, Pak-Man Cookies,
Roast Opus
Paid Memberships:
George Peace & Steve Jackson
Christine Keefer Charlie Bass
Eric L. Smith & Rodney A. Aloia
Diane B. Smith Girard Westerberg
Marshall Barry & Daniel D. Segard
Michelle Weisblat Russell Anderson
Jim Burt & Brian P. Bartee
Karen Burt Tom Jennings
Scott Munhollon & Ray Gwinn
Tammy Munhollon Tim Pozar
Peter N. White & Terry Travis
Cheryl Gordon Phil Becker
FidoNews 8-14 Page 17 8 Apr 1991
Thomas Pat Nefos & Bob Hartman
Judy Nefos Alan Applegate
Peter Stewart & Chris Anderson
Michele Hamilton Jeff P. Brothers
Daniel L. Bonner & Andrew Milner
Linda L. Bonner James F. Smith
Terry N. Rune' & Joaquim Homrighausen
Wayne A. Rune' Joe Dehn
James H. Dunmyer & Bruce H. Kirschner
Janice L. Dunmyer Ken Zen
Mike Ratledge & Ben Cunningham
Donna Ratledge John P. Roberts Jr.
Michael Kanavy & Chris Rand
Elizabeth Kanavy Norman B. Henke
Bob Whiston & Stanley A. Hirschman
Cheryl Whiston John R. Souvestre
William M. Van Glahn & Steven L. Rusboldt
Janet Van Glahn Emmitt W. A. Dove
Sam Saulys
George R. Cornell
Bill Bacon
Zhahai Stewart
Michael Pratt
John Johnson
Brenda Donovan
Ed Moore
Mike Eckles
Don Marquart
Jeff Tensly
Thomas Lange
Attending Banquet
Jim Burt & Charlie Bass
Karen Burt Rodney A. Aloia
Peter N. White & Girard Westerberg
Cheryl Gordon Daniel D. Segard
Daniel L. Bonner & Russell Anderson
Linda L. Bonner Brian P. Bartee
James H. Dunmyer & Jeff P. Brothers
Janice L. Dunmyer Andrew Milner
Mike Ratledge & James F. Smith
Donna Ratledge Joaquim Homrighausen
Michael Kanavy & Ben Cunningham
Elizabeth Kanavy John P. Roberts Jr.
William M. Van Glahn & Norman B. Henke
Janet Van Glahn Tom Jennings
FidoNews 8-14 Page 18 8 Apr 1991
Marshall Barry & Phil Becker
Michelle Weisblat Bob Hartman
John R. Souvestre
John Johnson
Brenda Donovan
Ed Moore
Don Marquart
Alan Applegate
Tim Pozar
Ray Gwinn
Seminars:
Surviving Government Scrutiny The Ultimate BBS/BBSing
in the future. Network
evolution
TBBS\TDBS\TIMS Getting the most from
BinkleyTerm
AMAX made easy Gateways - the
internetwork connection
Dealing with SYSOP burnout BBSing in the 90's and beyond
The Ethical Software Hacker For this I gave up my
Love Life?
How to moderate an Echo Copyrights demystified
Software Development Roundtable DOS 4/5, Windows
Developers Roundtable Modem Roundtable
file your own copyrights for $10 XRS/RAX/QMX/SeX/XOR/OREO
/MORE
Association of Shareware XRS (the Universal Off-Line
Reader Editor
Professionals
BBS Role Playing Gaming Forum Promoting your BBS
BBS Business Sense Network Ethics
BBS Users Groups Activities:
TBBS Users Group will be convening as FidoTUG '91 during the
convention.
AlterCon will be sharing the facilities.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 19 8 Apr 1991
AlterNet Costume Banquet Royal Court
Meeting of the Dukes
Fun Activities:
Traditional Hard Diskus Throw Floppy Fling
The Big Three Brewery Bash National SYSOP Mud Pie Fight
Air Force Academy Tour Garden of the Gods
Psychic and Physical Tours Golfing Tours of
of Colorful Colorado Colorado
We are scheduling additional seminars and social activities.
Fire off a message letting us know what you'd like to see and
do. If you would like to see someone special, let us know as
well.
*** FidoCon '91 Dealers Room will be open from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
*** Friday and Saturday, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm Sunday
Manufacturers Invited:
AAC Telecomm Adaptec, Inc.
Alloy Computer Products, Inc. American MiTAC Corporation
Anchor Automation Artisoft
AST Research, Inc. ATI Technologies Inc.
Bit Bucket Software BIX
Borland Chesterfield Financial Corp.
Clark Development Company, Inc Coconut Computing, Inc.
Compucom Connect Tech, Inc
DigiBoard Everex Systems, Inc.
Fujitsu Galacticomm, Inc.
Gates Distributing GVC Technologies Inc.
GW Associates Hayes Microcomputer Products
Hitachi Microcom, Inc.
Microsoft Motorola Computer Group
Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. Online Communications, Inc.
Practical Peripherals Prodigy Services
Quarterdeck Office Systems Searchlight Software
Supra Corporation Surf Computer Services
System Enhancement Associates Telebit Corporation
U.S. Robotics, Inc. VSI Telecommunications, Inc.
Western Digital Zoom Telephonics, Inc.
Confirmed dealers
Bit Bucket Software CDB Systems eSoft
Mustang Software, Inc.
Drawings & Prizes
Including:
FidoNews 8-14 Page 20 8 Apr 1991
16 Line TBBS/TDBS/TIMS Sysop Dream SYSTEM CPU with a 486 or a
386, at least 3/4 Gig disk, 16 ports and several modems ..
depending on number of attendees. A portion of the
memberships go to purchasing this system.
Autographed copies of the books that made Steve Jackson a
household name, GURPS CYBERPUNK.
For the SYSOP that has everything
300 baud acoustic Sysop Nightmare System
All kinds of donated equipment and software, some even working.
Hospitality Suites
eSoft Bit Bucket Software
More as it comes to being. Subscribe to the FIDOCON_91 Echo.
This will be THE BBSing Event of '91, BE THERE.
================== FidoCon '91 Registration Form ================
I guess in some ways this article is my "one last attempt" to
try and explain some things about Fidonet that have bothered me
for a long time. I've been in Fidonet for a few years now, and
have observed certain things that continue to happen even
though, in my opinion, they are destructive to our hobby.
This is not my "farewell to Fidonet" but in some ways it comes
close. My role in Fidonet henceforth will be much lower key,
unless something happens to cause me to take much greater
interest.
One thing I have noticed is that from time to time we quietly
lose some good people. They just can't put up will all the
B.S. anymore so they either leave Fidonet or quietly retire to
the sidelines. Nobody seems to care.
I can understand why these people leave. You can only beat
your head against a stone wall for so long before you decide
that the wall isn't going to move, and you might as well get on
with more profitable (and less painless!) pursuits.
Unfortunately, there are also those people who, in my opinion,
do things that are more destructive than helpful for Fidonet.
I won't name names, but some of them seem to have been around
nearly forever, and haven't changed their opinions much in that
time.
What bugs me is that Fidonet has so much potential, but in most
cases it's underutilized. Take a look at the echo conferences.
In many of them, you have at least a 50% signal to noise ratio
(for every on-topic, well-thought-out, valuable message,
there's at least one that is of no real use to anyone).
Also, development of truly NEW technology in the net seems to
have come to a standstill. I feel this is partly due to the
proliferation of various software from different authors,
coupled with a lack of clear, enforceable standards. It's no
longer possible to pick a node from the nodelist at random,
dial it with your mailer, and expect that 99.5% of the time
you'll make a good connect. Three years ago, if you couldn't
complete a mail session, it was most likely due to bad phone
lines. Now many of the phone companies use all digital
circuitry that has almost totally eliminated static and noise
in many areas, but now our mailers have their little quirks
that may keep them from talking to each other, unless the guy
on the other end is running the exact same software you are.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 23 8 Apr 1991
And once you've exchanged mail, the echomail scanners/tossers
don't view it all the same way. Various software has its own
little quirks that in many cases cause perfectly valid messages
to be discarded as dupes.
So, there is (in my opinion) an unacceptably high error rate in
the system, mostly again because of a lack of any will to
adhere to standards. You could blame the software developers
for this, and in a few cases it is their fault (one author
blatently refuses to even look at SEEN-BY lines when processing
echomail, except to add a node to them, in violation of every
accepted practice of echomail handling. Unfortunately, this
author's software is used a lot in Fidonet). BUT, in most
cases it's because we don't have a viable mechanism for
reviewing and officially sanctioning new standards. In most
cases the authors are doing things far ahead of existing
standards, and each is doing their own thing, and it's just a
happy coincidence if two pieces of software from different
author happen to work together at anything more than the most
basic level. In the meantime, mail is being lost, but it's no
big deal, right?!
And, our present technological level (that everyone accepts)
still has plenty of limitations, many of which were originally
due to political decisions rather than technical ones. In my
opinion, political decisions should be enforced by the
political types, and not by software. For example, in Fidonet
there's no easy way to attach a file to a message and forward
it through an intermediate system, NOT because software can't
be written to do it (in fact we've developed much more kludgey
ways to move files around) but because "way back when" some
political types decided that files should not be forwarded...
never mind that in certain instances (such as a local net or a
private net), someone might actually be willing to allow
forwarded files to pass through their system.
And will we ever be able to use character sets other than
English, or send graphics or even audio data as part of a
message? I'll bet that some folks would love to have the
capability to run BBS's that could actually support voice
messaging in addition to written messages, especially within a
local calling area, but the current Fidonet message formats
won't accept such extensions and I see little hope of getting
any real agreement on any new standards.
How about interfacing Fidonet with FAX machines? During the
recent experiment in sending messages to the troops in Saudi
Arabia (which, you may note, had to be carried out in a private
Fidonet-technology network due to Fidonet politics), only those
with computer modems could participate. Wouldn't it have been
nice if those with FAX machines could have dialed up a system
and the Fidonet mailer would have recognized an incoming FAX
transmission and accepted it, stored it, digitized and
compressed it (possibly even using OCR techniques to convert
typewritten documents to ASCII, and extract addressing
information), and then sent it on to its destination, with
FidoNews 8-14 Page 24 8 Apr 1991
minimal or no human intervention? Or maybe the reverse is
possible - receive a message off the net and automatically
forward it to a FAX machine in the local calling area. These
types of challenges (designing the hardware and software to
allow such things) would really excite some folks, but when you
keep getting told "we don't do things that way and if you
design such a system, nobody will use it, and you're some sort
of real lowlife for even suggesting it", you soon figure out
that there's better ways to spend your time.
If you need an example of this, take a look at GroupMail. It
really IS a superior system (to Echomail) for handling
conferences (with one exception, that being a relatively low
message size limit of 8K, but that could be gotten around,
too). Between the folks who haven't looked at GroupMail since
version 1.01 and therefore haven't the slightest notion of the
current capabilities (but think they do), and those who had a
grudge of some sort against the author, and the political types
who didn't like it because geographic restrictions on where one
obtained conferences couldn't be enforced, and those who simply
didn't want to bother with it, it all but died in Fidonet. And
we are all the poorer for it.
Let me digress just a moment: Some people didn't like
GroupMail because they felt it could be used for "censorship"
by a conference moderator. Well, in the first place, there are
times when removing one message from the message stream can
save a whole lot of off-topic or flame messages that everyone
has to pay for. Everyone (well, almost everyone) accepts the
notion that a sysop can selectively remove messages from a
local conference area on his BBS, but a good sysop rarely uses
that ability. What is the difference if a conference moderator
has that same ability, as long as they don't use it too often?
And in the second place, censorship is alive and well in
Fidonet. I hate to tell you folks this, but if you have
opinions that are not "politically correct", you WILL be
removed (or your speech severely restricted) from certain
conferences. Don't believe it? Try espousing a politically
conservative viewpoint in many conferences, and folks will be
trying to get rid of you almost immediately. Or if you REALLY
want to draw fire, just try explaining (not even necessarily
advocating) the Biblical (fundamentalist) viewpoint on feminism
or homosexuality. Unless you happen to follow your message
with a strong denial ("this is what THEY believe and I totally
reject it"), you'll have people calling for your head! The
concept of "Freedom of Speech" in Fidonet is very, very sick...
if you say the RIGHT (or, I should say, the left) things,
you'll have folks defending your freedom of speech against all
comers. Express an unpopular viewpoint, and suddenly an
entirely different standard is applied ("this is a private
echo, you have no freedom of speech here"). My point is that
TRUE freedom of speech is a myth in Fidonet anyway, and it is
less than honest to say that we shouldn't use certain software
because it might make a conference moderator's job a bit
easier. Once again, this is a political consideration and
FidoNews 8-14 Page 25 8 Apr 1991
should be handled by political means, not by crippling the
software we use.
The whole real problem with Fidonet is that the politicians are
making technical specs, and the software people are writing
political considerations into the software. Let me give you
just one example: Suppose that you are running a BBS, but for
whatever reason you want to get your echo feeds from out of
town and, as it happens, a different geographic reason. Now,
if you are willing to be a point off of the system that feeds
you, you can do that, but then you can't be listed in the
nodelist. Or, if you are listed in the nodelist, your freedom
to get echoes from wherever you want is restricted by policy.
This is absolutely NUTS... in most cases, the folks making such
decisions are not paying your phone bill, YOU are... and yet
they come up with some of the stupidest reasons I've ever heard
for maintaining geographic restrictions. If I were some of
these folks, I'd be ashamed to show my ignorance in making some
of the statements they've made in support of continued
geographic restrictions.
The most idiotic one I've heard goes something like this: If I
have a system one block away from you, but for some reason I'm
in a net from across the country (so my net host is a long
distance call to you), then you have to make a long distance
call to send me netmail. Now in the first place, who says you
have a God-given right to send me netmail in the first place?
But the fact is that any technically competent sysop can figure
out how to bypass host routing and send mail direct, where it
is less expensive to do so (and some of the folks making these
statements definitely have been around long enough to know how
to set up such routing), and besides, if I opt to be a point
rather than a full node, not only will you have the same
problem but you won't have the convenience of finding me in the
nodelist. But what you are really saying to those in this
situation is this: "You have no right to get your echomail
from the most cost-effective source for you because I *MIGHT* -
just *MIGHT*, mind you - decide to send you some netmail
someday." How arrogant and selfish can you get?
I just wish that those folks who were so defensive of freedom
of speech were as concerned about freedom of association - that
is, the right to sysops to associate with each other based on
their wants and needs, and particularly on least-cost-routing
concerns, and not because of the desires of some coordinator
structure that can't understand topology unless it follows
lines on a map (again, if I were that mentally incompetent, I'd
be ashamed to admit it!).
So what do we have? A network of several thousand nodes, but
few high quality conferences. A network where certain
political viewpoints are actively suppressed. A network where
technology is stagnating because the politicians are trying to
set technical restrictions, and the technically astute are
given little say in setting new technical standards, which
aren't enforced anyway.
FidoNews 8-14 Page 26 8 Apr 1991
It seems as though there is a lack of balance in Fidonet. I
would like to close with a thought adapted from a writer named
Larry Johnson in a business publication I received recently.
Mr. Johnson states that he believes in guidelines, standards,
and accountability to authority, but he also believes in
personal initiative, creativity, and resourcefulness. He then
goes on to say: "These two basic aspects must be KEPT IN
BALANCE. Lack of balance in either direction IS THE MARK OF
IMMATURITY. Neither anarchy, nor dictatorship has been proven
useful in the human endeavors OF ANY FIELD. That is true in
religion, government, social fields, medicine,..." and, I
might add, it certainly applies to Fidonet! Mr. Johnson then
gives the following advice:
"AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE people in any walk of life who encourage
a state of either anarchy or dictatorship. I don't care how
good their intentions seem to be. Anarchy is an absence of law
and structure. Dictatorship is when law and authority is
presented for its own sake."
In Fidonet we have many who advocate total anarchy, and others
who want to impose a particular structure for its own sake (or
worse yet, because they feel it will empower them or their
little group in some way). I hope that neither of these
extremes will gain (or stay in) control, because if that
happens, Fidonet will never reach its full potential. It will
remain an unfulfilled promise, a technology that could have
benefited many but that was misused and abused by those with
their own particular special interests, while the voice of the
common sysop was all but ignored. I want to quickly add that I
do NOT advocate another IFNA type structure (may it Rest In
Peace!) because that just attracts "control freaks", but just
because we don't have that structure does not mean we should
accept total anarchy, or "government by who can scream the
loudest, longest, and make the biggest pain of themselves."
I apologize for the negative tone of this article, but I hope
it will cause some of you to think about what's been happening
(or not happening, as the case may be). If you feel that
Fidonet isn't quite what you expected or hoped for when you got
into it, maybe the answer is here somewhere. I leave it to the
reader to judge whether there's and validity in these comments.
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.
12 May 1991
Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.
15 Aug 1991
5th annual Z1 Fido Convention - FidoCon '91 "A New Beginning"
Sheraton Denver West August 15 through August 18 1991.
8 Sep 1991
25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!
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.
