The technology, of course, requires them. But there's no technological
reason why all of Fidonet today couldn't be tossed into a single zone and zones, as you mentioned, be repurposed to distinguish othernets.
In some sense, in fact, even within Fidonet zones aren't precisely tied to geography any more. I'm in Taiwan, but being fed from Australia. The technology doesn't care.
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (3:712/886)
Fidonet needs to visibly look unified. One zone number to identify that.
You could be ... Making history!
You could be ... Making history!
My kids tell me that all the time. Only they say it like, "Daddy, you
belong in an antique store."
nathanael culver wrote to August Abolins <=-
Fidonet needs to visibly look unified. One zone number to identify that.
One Zone Number to rule them all? :-)
I'd suggest Zone 1 for Fidonet in recognition of its historical importance. You could decomission zones 2-7 if you'd like so as
to avoid future confusion.
One Zone Number to rule them all? :-)
I'd suggest Zone 1 for Fidonet in recognition of its historical importance. You could decomission zones 2-7 if you'd like so as to avoid future confusion.
On 03-15-19 10:12, nathanael culver wrote to August Abolins <=-
Fidonet needs to visibly look unified. One zone number to identify that.
One Zone Number to rule them all? :-)
I'd suggest Zone 1 for Fidonet in recognition of its historical importance. You could decomission zones 2-7 if you'd like so as to
avoid future confusion.
I see young kids fascinated by old typewriters as decor in my shop. They
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
Fidonet needs to abandon the idea of "rule"ing anything, but SERVING the
current sysops could VIEW, and verify the entries for correctness and
No, I think we most certainly need to keep Fidonet off the Internet.
The 21st century Fidonet (ie. nodelist) could be phased in and the old one longer to be updated.
With the current diminished nodelist, the workload to merge the existing Zo 2 3 and 4 entries with assigned new Zone 1 lines is pretty low.
On 03-15-19 05:42, August Abolins wrote to nathanael culver <=-
With today's resources, the new node assignments could be tracked and managed with a shared project manager or a shared spreadsheet that
current sysops could VIEW, and verify the entries for correctness and observe the merge progress.
On 03-15-19 13:18, nathanael culver wrote to August Abolins <=-
I see young kids fascinated by old typewriters as decor in my shop. They
My daughter is fascinated by both manual typewriters and rotary dial phones (I actually had to show her how to use them). On our trip back
to the US last month I dragged her kicking and screaming to an antique store, but she left an hour later with a phone-full of pictures of typewriters and rotary phones.
On 03-15-19 13:20, nathanael culver wrote to Dan Clough <=-
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
I realize that. But 5-7 still traditionally "belong" to FidoNet even if they're no longer in use, which is why I suggested decommissioning them
as well.
On 03-15-19 13:41, nathanael culver wrote to August Abolins <=-
TBH, I don't want to see Fidonet change too much. I do see some
othernet groups gated to the Internet, but I'd resist that. First,
Fidonet would get swallowed up pretty quick, as it doesn't bring
anything unique to the Internet. Second, swelling it too much with
total strangers would reduce it to an endless wasteland of verbal
brawls a la Youtube or, more to the point, Disqus. Just look at what
the Internet reduced USENET to.
No, I think we most certainly need to keep Fidonet off the Internet.
On 03-15-19 13:58, nathanael culver wrote to nathanael culver <=-
No, I think we most certainly need to keep Fidonet off the Internet.
Just for clarification, by "Internet" here of course I mean "the Web".
What was Zone 7?
There is no reason that a bbs couldn't one day operate from an orbiting satellite.
Fidonet needs to visibly look unified. One zone number to identify that.
On 03-15-19 16:12, nathanael culver wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
What was Zone 7?
I could be mistaken. Was it only 1-6?
What was Zone 7?
I could be mistaken. Was it only 1-6?
As far as I know it was.
Just one zone number for Fidonet (modeled after the othernet style, and to recognize Tom Jennings' regrets) could help unify this apparently fractured network. Instead of separate 1,2,4,5,6,7 zones, why not just make it 1234 (to kinda represent the last existing zones) or add up the digits 1 thru 7 (in recognition of the original 7) and make it 28. OR.. just place everyone in 1, to represent the 1st in Fidonet existence.
With the current diminished nodelist, the workload to merge the existing Zones 2 3 and 4 entries with assigned new Zone 1 lines is pretty low.
With today's resources, the new node assignments could be tracked and managed with a shared project manager or a shared spreadsheet that current sysops could VIEW, and verify the entries for correctness and observe the merge progress.
There are certain things in Fidonet that cannot and will not change because of too much bad blood and history. A lot of damage has been caused by "zone wars" and while technically one zone could work, politically its impossible.
If you let history hold you back, you are never going anywhere. I've heard this all too often in the workplace 'Well, it didn't work 20 years ago, so we decided to never, ever try again.' Everytime I hear that, it makes me want to work twice as hard to make it so.
We have to let go of the past, and what happened back 10-20-30 years ago. None of that is relevant anymore. We have new technology, new people and new ideas - and it's time to start investing in all of that.
If you let history hold you back, you are never going anywhere. I've heard this all too often in the workplace 'Well, it didn't work 20 years ago, so decided to never, ever try again.' Everytime I hear that, it makes me want work twice as hard to make it so.
We have to let go of the past, and what happened back 10-20-30 years ago.
Apparently the current Fidonet can survive as it is. Turning Fidonet into
an Othernet along views by those who have missed 10-20-30 of its history,
is not the solution to its future.
In the case of the ZC position, that is THE single most criticised and derided position even though a ZC does what they do out of love and devotion to keep the nodelist production running.
But there are some parts of Fidonet operation that are permanently damaged because of history. The most serious is the seemingly poor relations between many Zone 1 and Zone 2 Sysops. Some serious insults and actions were done by both. Thats just the tip of the iceberg of problems Fido has.
Its better to either start an Othernet - as a few have very successfully done - or just leave Fido alone. Sorry, progression just cannot happen. The only idea I could see happening is focusing on much better software for newcomers.
Is that the main task of a ZC? If so, I'd like to learn more about how the this because if I am understanding correctly, that could be completely automated. In fact, I don't see why node numbers can't automatically be
You are correct, there are a number of very good Othernets out there -- fsx for one.
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
I realize that. But 5-7 still traditionally "belong" to FidoNet
It already "is" automated. My system receives segments from RC's and compiles the Zone 1 segment. That segment is used to create a few different "flavors" of the Nodelist, and is also passed on to Zone's 2 3 and 4 for them to create their own listing (out of a technical decision from the 1980's).
There is no central "one person" that does the entire Nodelist. This is part
This automation all runs on the assumption that others are sending me segments with no problems. That is true of any automated system. Garbage in, garbage out. You send me a good segment, you get a good nodelist. You send me crap, well, your fix will depend on how drunk/sober I am.
This production runs on a combination of custom-software I wrote for
MS-DOS and Windows because it is not possible to run a reliable operation for ZC1 on Linux, not worth risking and no "new software" exists to run an entire ZC operation... period. Some utilities in use date back to the late 1980's.
All of this works here completely automated. Zero babysitting, zero
screwups (knock on wood). Zero finger-pointing. Zero segments randomly dropped or mismanaged. No matter how badly the Nodelist Police want that.
More importantly... Zero experimenting. I am using Fido software and an OS that is proven to be reliable and stable and really no incentive to change or see any way to improve the operation. D'Bridge runs the entire back-office operations of Zone 1 and Zone 2; yet its amusing to see people comment about how things could be magically improved somehow with Linux.
So to be a good ZC, you need to be extremely technically-competent as well as have tremendous people skills to work with other RC's and ZC's. None of this is possible unless you have a solid understanding and appreciation of both history, cultural difference and patience and not be so quick to dismiss things to start a new idea or concept.
More importantly, dealing with know-it-alls, Linux zealiots and everyone eager to point out the most trivial of problems; even by a "probationary Sysop" who can't seem to figure out how to get a node number let alone send a Netmail.
On 03-15-19 20:52, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Zone 7 is only spoken of in hushed tones, and in darkened spaces. If I could get my old node containing the required info opened in a
Virtualbox (vBox), I would whisper little nothings to you about it in netmail. But I can't as there is a monumental storm passing hereabouts that's been travelling nearby for the last two hours, and my other PC running the new 64-bit vBox doesn't have a working UPS.
Remind me...
On 03-15-19 17:43, Kees van Eeten wrote to Robert Stinnett <=-
Apparently the current Fidonet can survive as it is. Turning Fidonet into
an Othernet along views by those who have missed 10-20-30 of its history,
is not the solution to its future.
It already "is" automated. My system receives segments from RC's and
My question is why does it have to be so many people involved? Why can't t system just process and send it out itself? Nobody should have to touch,
This production runs on a combination of custom-software I wrote for
MS-DOS and Windows because it is not possible to run a reliable operation
Is this software available in the open-source world or under a license that allows others to try and modernize it and bring it into the Linux world?
What happens, if it is a closed-source system, if that person dies or decid they don't want to have anything to do with it anymore?
That's great -- now it's time to bring that automation to the next level. Progress.
Look, I'll be honest here, based on what I've seen, witnessed and read I do have much faith in the future of Fidonet. That is a pretty harsh statement make, but the politics nowadays seem 10x worse than they were back in the 9
Apparently the current Fidonet can survive as it is. Turning Fidonet
into
an Othernet along views by those who have missed 10-20-30 of its
history,
is not the solution to its future.
That's your opinion. And one that I think is not in the majority.
That is quite possibly the silliest statement I have ever heard by effectively saying "Well, if you weren't around for the past you can't be a part of the future". With that kind of thinking then nobody should have a say in anything they didn't personally help create. That is just plain stupid.
My question is why does it have to be so many people involved?
Why can't the
system just process and send it out itself? Nobody should have to touch, email, netmail, ftp, sneakernet or anything else segments.
Data validation is part of any good automation system.
What happens, if it is a closed-source system, if that person dies or decides they don't want to have anything to do with it anymore?
I believe the best leaders in the world are those that challenge us to think outside the box.
Kind of hard to send a netmail without having a number. Pretty hard to
get a number when the website that has the information was last updated
10 years ago.
.... but the politics nowadays seem 10x worse than they were back in the 90s -- and I thought that to be quite impossible.
Most importantly.... trust. Ask Ward about that one.
Someone, or perhaps several, said that I should write a FIDONEWS article about it -- so I am, and will submit it and we'll see if it gets
anywhere.
Remind me...
Interesting, I'm looking forward to reading that netmail. :)
If you properly deliver it in a proper format following the guidelines all should be well.
On 03-15-19 15:53, Nick Andre wrote to Robert Stinnett <=-
I agree there shouldn't be so many people, but it is what it is in
Fido. Technically-competent people are also hard to come by and are valuable when we have them hanging around.
I still do not quite understand how a 100% automated system will work,
how it gets decided what software to run, what server OS, what virtual-machine environment, who gets access to it and if so by what decisions is it made, who gets to vote on it, who is qualified and who isn't.
My system and Ward's are about as automated as it gets... I'd say 99%.
The 1 percent are segment errors or equipment failure, both extremely rare.
This production runs on a combination of custom-software I wrote forhat
MS-DOS and Windows because it is not possible to run a reliable operation
Is this software available in the open-source world or under a license
allows others to try and modernize it and bring it into the Linux world?
The MakeNL source I believe is open, but the rest is all custom to this system, just as ZC2's software is specific for him, ZC3 and ZC4 etc.
As soon as I say MS-DOS and Windows, the instant reaction is why not switch to Linux, instead of understanding why I use what I use. I chose
an OS and a commercial-grade server system that is reliable and stable
and "just works" without experimenting or screwing around.
Lets just say I want to be a fan of Linux... I really do. I administer Linux servers as part of my job. But that OS is just not the right fit
for this system or its needs. I have had this discussion with others at length and believe me its easier to stick with what works at this
point.
What happens, if it is a closed-source system, if that person dies orecid
they don't want to have anything to do with it anymore?
I'm confident I can be replaced if something were to happen to me. The know-it-alls I've encountered would definately love an opportunity.
Look, I'll be honest here, based on what I've seen, witnessed and read Io
have much faith in the future of Fidonet. That is a pretty harshtatement
make, but the politics nowadays seem 10x worse than they were back in the
Agreed. So much damage has been done. Believe me when I say its near impossible for some to move on from the past. It affects the present
too much.
On 03-16-19 09:36, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Hi! Tony,
On 03/16/2019 06:25 AM, you wrote:
Remind me...
Interesting, I'm looking forward to reading that netmail. :)
Thanks, but that may take some time best spent on other tasks I have on
my 'todo'. OTOH, I would suggest that you look for Mark Lewis's note
to Nathanael Culver in this morning's bunch of posts. (MSGID: 1:3634/12.73 5c8bf140 refers.) Mark does a succinct job on the
outcome.
nathanael culver wrote to Dan Clough <=-
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
I realize that. But 5-7 still traditionally "belong" to FidoNet
even if they're no longer in use, which is why I suggested
decommissioning them as well.
My question is why does it have to be so many people involved? Why
can't the system just process and send it out itself? Nobody should
have to touch, email, netmail, ftp, sneakernet or anything else
segments. Make it all online and self-service.
While you may not see any room to improve it, I have found that letting others examine something can open up a world of opportunities. Perhaps
it is perfect -- but it is hard to tell unless we get others looking at
it and examing it as well. I believe in the wisdom of crowds -- while every idea may not be adopted, good information can be gleemed from
others who don't deal with it on a day to day basis.
Look, I'll be honest here, based on what I've seen, witnessed and read I don't have much faith in the future of Fidonet. That is a pretty harsh
I believe that the future at this point is with the Othernets and
perhaps even complete abandonment of FTN type networks in favor of new technology or a re-use of another technology already out there. I'm not 100% convinced the technologies of FTN are really applicable in the
modern BBS/forum world.
There is a growing movement of people who want to connect with smaller, online communities and a BBS -- in whatever form that may be -- could
very well be the answer for them. It may not a BBS as we all know them, or remember them, but I do believe there is at least some room for
growth both in number of users/systems and technology.
OTOH, I would suggest that you look for Mark Lewis's note to
Nathanael Culver in this morning's bunch of posts. (MSGID:
1:3634/12.73 5c8bf140 refers.) Mark does a succinct job on the
outcome.
Such back references are a pain to follow, that's now in my "past". :(
Z7 is not and never was a fidonet zone... it was dreamed of being a fidonet zome encompassing maybe R50 in Z2 at one time but that never
came to be... especially since another FTN or two was already using
it...
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
An automated system should be based on standards. Where standards don't ye exist, create then document and release them, so other developers can imple
But nodelist data maintenance is still concentrated in the hands of NCs, an aggregated by RCs and ZCs. Some of these roles could be replaced by a web based front end, where individual sysops actually maintain their own nodeli
You've got me curious though, because I generally find Linux easier to make what I want than Windows, especially when a high degree of automation and networking is needed. What is it that DOS and Windows have that make them suitable? I'm not picking, obviously I'm overlooking something that's important to the system you use.
Sadly, you may be right. I'd like to see everyone acknowledge the past the move on, but I can't see that happening. :(
Anyway, what's the difference between "no longer in use" and "decommissioned"? Seems like the same thing, unless there is some
nathanael culver wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Anyway, what's the difference between "no longer in use" and "decommissioned"? Seems like the same thing, unless there is some
In a theoretical world where Fidonet were reduced to a single
zone (hypothetically Zone 1) and zones were repurposed to
represent othernets, "decommissioned" would mean "everyone agrees
not to use 2-6 for any othernets in the future."
On 03-16-19 11:31, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Z7 is not and never was a fidonet zone... it was dreamed of being a fidonet zome encompassing maybe R50 in Z2 at one time but that never
came to be... especially since another FTN or two was already using
it...
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
Mmm... I thought Multimail was pretty bloody good... last century. Aarrrgh! Yes! QWK mail. The light bulb lit. Oh, yes. You have my sympathy. ;)
On 03-15-19 21:31, Nick Andre wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I still do not understand what automation is needed beyond what I'm
doing. A ZC system processes segments from RC's which contain segments from NC's. This is by itself mostly an automated process and either a segment can be processed by MakeNL or it is rejected. But okay, I'll
bite:
There are many problems with this I can see, and I know you're just thinking out loud, but it is a solution for a completely non-existant problem. Where is this need for this automated system coming from? If a node is disgruntled with their NC, there is a resolution process for
that.
MS-DOS makes up most of my operation. Mailer, tosser, ZC1 production
and BBS software are all pure DOS. Windows runs a Telnet server as well
as executing scripts and backup sets. Its really just acting as a glorified multi-tasker.
Because DOS just works and is so versatile and portable for me, the ZC1 operation can be zipped up and easily ran on someone else's pure DOS machine, OS/2, Windows 32-bit, maybe even DOSEMU and DosBox.
Windows for me, does NOT crash, is locked down, does what its supposed
to do, no surprises, no screwing around, exceptionally long periods of uptime and good redundant backup sets taken every night. Spare hardware
on standby.
Sadly, you may be right. I'd like to see everyone acknowledge the pasthe
move on, but I can't see that happening. :(
Its not the first discussion held in Fido about all of this, but
certainly at least interesting.
I've never been a big fan of online interfaces and the machine is not local.
If you properly deliver it in a proper format following the guidelines
all should be well.
As long as the format isn't some 1980's relic that no modern editor supports -- sure.
But nodelist data maintenance is still concentrated in the hands of NCs, and aggregated by RCs and ZCs.
Some of these roles could be replaced by a web based front end, where individual sysops actually maintain their own nodelist entries.
The interface would validate all fields, so that the nodelist data at least conformed to standards (of course, there's still a degree of
"GIGO", but that goes for any human entered content ;) ).
The MakeNL source I believe is open, but the rest is all custom to
this system, just as ZC2's software is specific for him, ZC3 and ZC4
etc.
Yes, I have the MakeNL source here that I compiled on my Pi. I use
MakeNL on the Pi and x86_64 to generate my VLRadio nodelists. Further processing by another script generates my DNS zone file. Along the
way, scripts hatch the nodelist and rebuild and hatch the infopack
every week, including the latest nodelist. For various reasons, I
require 100% automation to keep everything up to date.
Thanks, but that may take some time best spent on other tasks I have
on my 'todo'. OTOH, I would suggest that you look for Mark Lewis's
note to Nathanael Culver in this morning's bunch of posts. (MSGID:
1:3634/12.73 5c8bf140 refers.) Mark does a succinct job on the
outcome.
Such back references are a pain to follow, that's now in my "past". :(
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
I realize that. But 5-7 still traditionally "belong" to FidoNet
If you properly deliver it in a proper format following the guidelines all should be well.
As long as the format isn't some 1980's relic that no modern editor supports -- sure.
Anyway, what's the difference between "no longer in use" and
"decommissioned"? Seems like the same thing, unless there is some
In a theoretical world where Fidonet were reduced to a single zone (hypothetically Zone 1) and zones were repurposed to represent othernets, "decommissioned" would mean "everyone agrees not to use 2-6 for any othernets in the future."
Some seem to be concerned about concentration of power, others about inconsistent nodelist maintenance.
On 03-16-19 18:18, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I like a modicum of AC/DC. This note is via SSH from my notebook on
the coffee table (aka my point system). :)
... Toto, I don't think we're in DOS any more...
On 03-16-19 04:27, mark lewis wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
at one time, my makenl was configured to allow operators to submit
their own individual nodelist entries... it worked quite well when the proper format and data was submitted...
already done and handled since eons... just no web interface where you have to employ more security than necessary to prevent bots and humans from attacking, changing others' entries, submitting invalid/false
data, etc... a NC/HUB should know who is in their segment and not just rubber stamp what is sent to them for processing... the RCs/ZCs have to have some trust in their NCs but they should also still check the
segments they generate to send upstream...
how do you know if/when invalid data gets in? i'm speaking of data that passes the tests but is still invalid/incorrect...
On 03-16-19 04:38, mark lewis wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
sounds like some software could use a threading model which makes it
easy to go back through threads and even to list posts so they can
easily be read and then return to where one was in their reading ;)
On 03-16-19 10:06, Ward Dossche wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Then what is important? Football is ... my team plays for the title
this evening, there will be lots of beer.
I like being isolated from the network and a non terminal interface.
:)
... Toto, I don't think we're in DOS any more...Nope, largely left it behind years ago. ;)
But next weekend, I'm off to Melbourne to
compete in the Victorian Masters athletics. A few sprints and hurdles
are on the program for me ;) I balance my nerdy pursuits with a lot of exercise. :)
... because someone somewhere has been sitting on a password of the website without the domain-holder (i.e. me) having access to it. A situation which finally resolved itself last Feb.25 2019.
This is very good news, how long did this take to resolve?
If Terry Roata and other people from the former Z6 would get together
and decide they want to try to revive it, I'm all for it.
Next, before I move/change anything I need someone to explain to me what th functionality of these lines is:
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
Ward Dossche wrote to TERRY ROATI <=-
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
I'veOn 03-16-19 04:27, mark lewis wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
at one time, my makenl was configured to allow operators to submit
their own individual nodelist entries... it worked quite well when the
proper format and data was submitted...
Which then relies too much on human input. Wouldn't be the first time
typod something. I only discovered half of my nodelist was broken
when I started generating DNS RRs for it, and finding that half of the entries didn't convert.
I don't see why in 2019 we need to be relying so heavily on humans to validate syntax that can be done by machine. Let the machine do that
and let the people look at the _content_.
already done and handled since eons... just no web interface where
you have to employ more security than necessary to prevent bots and
humans from attacking, changing others' entries, submitting
invalid/false data, etc... a NC/HUB should know who is in their
segment and not just rubber stamp what is sent to them for
processing... the RCs/ZCs have to have some trust in their NCs but
they should also still check the segments they generate to send
upstream...
Good points re security. I still think some machine validation of
syntax on entry/generation would be helpful. Obviously, only a human
can verify that the contents of the nodelist entries are actually
correct.
how do you know if/when invalid data gets in? i'm speaking of data
that passes the tests but is still invalid/incorrect...
ATM, it's a one man show, so same way you do - manually. ;)
sounds like some software could use a threading model which makes it
easy to go back through threads and even to list posts so they can
easily be read and then return to where one was in their reading ;)
Threading would be nice, but I'd need a different means of reading messages to do that. Web is the obvious one, but for me web
interfaces suck.
Next, before I move/change anything I need someone to explain to me
what the functionality of these lines is:
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
Apparently the current Fidonet can survive as it is. Turning Fidonet
into an Othernet along views by those who have missed 10-20-30 of its
history, is not the solution to its future.
That's your opinion. And one that I think is not in the majority.
If I had followed the opinion of the majority, I would not still be in Fidonet.
shouldThat is quite possibly the silliest statement I have ever heard bybe a part of the future". With that kind of thinking then RS>nobody
effectively saying "Well, if you weren't around for the past you RS>can't
have a say in anything they didn't personally help RS>create. That isjust
plain stupid.
To realize change, one has to demonstrate, that it can be done.
If a new technology or procedure has a future, it will be used.
Telling others, what should be done or developed, does not work in technology.
Instant opinions on someones intelligence are never productive in any discussion.
The last time this was discussed, someone in Zone 2 complained that they
had more nodes and that everyone would need to move to it, instead of them moving to Zone 1. And the fun continues...
1234 is nice, and has the benefit of pissing everyone off equally asfall
we'd all need to renumber our configs. Makes me wonder how many nodes would
off in a renumbering because they were running on autopilot or dead listings?
There is no reason that a bbs couldn't one day operate from an orbiting satellite.
There has already been a point that was operated from orbit and a node
from Antarctica.
Fidonet needs to visibly look unified. One zone number to identifythat.
Nice, not new, but you have no idea what you would be breaking, probably
it would be the definitive end of Fidonet as we know it today with just
a mere pockets surviving.
Roughly how many systems will it take to revive Zone 6, at the moment I know of 3 active systems in Asia, 1 in Taiwan, 1 in Singapore and 1 in Philippines?
Next, before I move/change anything I need someone to explain to me what
the functionality of these lines is:
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
On 2019 Mar 16 20:31:00, you wrote to me:
sounds like some software could use a threading model which makes it
easy to go back through threads and even to list posts so they can
easily be read and then return to where one was in their reading ;)
Threading would be nice, but I'd need a different means of reading messages to do that. Web is the obvious one, but for me web
interfaces suck.
yeah, i know the feeling... QWK just doesn't have all the needed information for proper threading...
are until such a time when a revived Z6 really takes off. And if it doesn't we trashcan that revived Z6 and nothing's lost.
What was Zone 7? I remember 1-6 from the old days.
Z7 is not and never was a fidonet zone... it was dreamed of being a
fidonet zome encompassing maybe R50 in Z2 at one time but that never
came to be... especially since another FTN or two was already using it...
On 03-16-19 19:55, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Hi! Tony,
On 16 Mar 19 20:19, you wrote to me:
I like being isolated from the network and a non terminal interface.
:)
I can't do that any longer.
... Toto, I don't think we're in DOS any more...Nope, largely left it behind years ago. ;)
It's still lying in wait here. I had to move the second of two Win98se vBox appliances over to the Xunubtu 64-bit vBox server, after this
older Xubuntu 32-bit vBox server refused to run *absolutelty* after a 'kernel header' upgrade re-boot. That'll make two more loverly MS-DOS playthings on it... till this server is upped to 64-bit also. Then
they come back... fingers crossed. :)
Cheers,
Paul.
... Emergency repair procedure #1: Kick it.
On 03-16-19 11:09, Ward Dossche wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I bought a 31ft 3 cabin sailyacht, full galley, toilet ... and the
weather is becoming sailable.
The nerd can come along. There's wifi and my point on a tablet.
On 03-16-19 11:23, mark lewis wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
yup, depending on the typo, makenl or another nodelist processor might have found it... we've all seen what happens when a broken segment gets included and entire nets and regions are dropped out of the nodelist...
when I started generating DNS RRs for it, and finding that half of the entries didn't convert.
i can't say that i've run into that in a similar situation where i was generating f.n.z.my.domain stuff for my old email<->FTN gating stuff
but i did have to really work on my regexes ;)
makenl and similar nodelist processors are supposed to be used to
validate the format... humans have been checking the content... that's been SOP for eons...
very true... the problem would come when bots spew proper format
garbage into the list which a human then has to remove before
processing with makenl...
how do you know if/when invalid data gets in? i'm speaking of data
that passes the tests but is still invalid/incorrect...
ATM, it's a one man show, so same way you do - manually. ;)
i freely admit that it was a long time before i looked at makenl and implemented it in my setup... i was doing the whole thing manually
before then... manually editing the segment and then manually attaching
it to a netmail to my upstream coordinator... when i added makenl,
things got a lot easier but one still has to manually edit the segment
in a plain ASCII text editor... edlin was used over here for a long
time OB-)
these days, the nets in my region send their segments in, makenl finds them in the inbound and moves them when the testing function is executed... if the testing and manual review passes, the NCs are
notified that their segment has been processed and accepted when the process function is executed... makenl generates the file attach
netmail and puts it in the netmail directory where the mail tosser then processes it and exports it so the mailer can handle it...
i'm not saying that makenl will catch everything, though... there are
only a few required fields so at least X number of commas are
required... however, the last comma separated fields are not mandatory
so they may be missed... i've seen flags joined into one because a
comma was missed and that's where the human comes into play but it is
easy for those to be missed, too... it isn't perfect and the format
could stand some updating so the flag fields are denoted in a better manner but that would break a lot of existing software so we keep on
doing what it takes to make things work...
On 03-16-19 11:37, mark lewis wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
yeah, i know the feeling... QWK just doesn't have all the needed information for proper threading... things today are a lot better than they were when messages were ""threaded"" together by subject line, though... that was attrocious... i won't even mention systems that sort the mail by date before tossing into the message bases... especially
bad since timezone data is not included for proper sorting into the
local timezone...
On 03-16-19 12:42, Ward Dossche wrote to TERRY ROATI <=-
Next, before I move/change anything I need someone to explain to me
what the functionality of these lines is:
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
Also, people approaching me with the statement "Trust me, I know what
I'm doing" get an odd look.
On 03-16-19 10:14, Nick Andre wrote to Ward Dossche <=-
A correct solution is to have at least two virtual-machines set up
through a cheap cloud company - OVH out of Montreal Quebec for example
- as the Name Servers and one that runs the Perl script to generate DNS for BIND. This will at least ensure no downtime or complaints and completely eliminate the existing situation with Marco and the
Italians... until this setup with Region 50 can be looked at further.
Now lets cue to the know-it-alls.
On 15 Mar 19 05:42:22, August Abolins said the following to Nathanael Culver:
The 21st century Fidonet (ie. nodelist) could be phased in and the
old one nolonger to be updated.
Please, everyone... I'm begging you for all things holy, lets NOT get
into this discussion. At best, this is laughable amusing fodder for our
Zone 2..
There are certain things in Fidonet that cannot and will not change
because of too much bad blood and history.
A lot of damage has been caused by "zone wars"
and while technically one zone could work, politically its impossible.
Lets just focus on websites, newcomers and better software.
So, instead of..
1st. Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
2nd. Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
...put in the server names that Joacim's ISP is using. Joacim should be ab to tell you that.
No, I think we most certainly need to keep Fidonet off the Internet. Just for clarification, by "Internet" here of course I mean "the Web".
OK, but one could argue similarly against gating Fidonet to fidonet.* or alt.bbs.fidonet.* newsgroups too. :)
are until such a time when a revived Z6 really takes off. And if it doesn't we trashcan that revived Z6 and nothing's lost.
I'm confused. Just two days ago you were telling me about how badly Fidonet would break if zones were disbanded. Now you're talking about reviving and potentially again disbanding a zone as if it were nothing.
Which is it?
There is no central "one person" that does the entire Nodelist. Thisis part
This is good, as I never think a process should be owned by one person. However, I'd much rather replace those x-number of persons who are doing
this segment process with automation as well.
Data validation is part of any good automation system. Did I get the right data, in the right format and does it match certain rules? If not,crashing
reject that data and keep on trucking. The whole system shouldn't come
down or end because some bad data got into it.
..I believe in the wisdom of crowds -- while every idea may not be
adopted, good information can be gleemed from others who don't deal with
it on a day to day basis.
Kind of hard to send a netmail without having a number. Pretty hard to
get a number when the website that has the information was last updated 10 years ago.
I believe that the future at this point is with the Othernets and
perhaps even
complete abandonment of FTN type networks in favor of new technology or a re-use of another technology already out there. I'm not 100% convinced the technologies of FTN are really applicable in the modern BBS/forum world.
..I do believe there is at least some room for growth both in number of users/systems and technology.
I'm confused. Just two days ago you were telling me about how badly Fidonet would break if zones were disbanded. Now you're talking about reviving and potentially again disbanding a zone as if it were nothing.
Which is it?
On 03-17-19 03:24, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Tony Langdon : nathanael culver wrote:
What was Zone 7? I remember 1-6 from the old days.
By bad. I did it. I was running off with my fingers.
BUT.. someone *did* acknowledge of a proposed 7 back in the day. I'm curious.
On 03-17-19 03:49, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Too late. fidonet.ozzmosis.com posts everything from the echos in the clear, since 2002. And from the looks of it, nothing gets purged.
Very handy! LOL
OK, but one could argue similarly against gating Fidonet to fidonet.* or alt.bbs.fidonet.* newsgroups too. :)
That has been experimented with. I tried that with the IEEE echo and comp.org.ieee, briefly. I quickly realized that it could become filled with garbage. Today comp.org.ieee is relatively clean, but there is
the ocassional troll or annoyance.
On 03-16-19 22:04, Nick Andre wrote to August Abolins <=-
Unless Joacim is running a commercial-grade DNS server setup and has replicated the existing DNS structure, and his ISP is okay with the
level of DNS queries, please do NOT suggest merely switching name
servers.
I still do not quite understand how a 100% automated system will work,
how it
gets decided what software to run, what server OS, what virtual-machine environment, who gets access to it and if so by what decisions is it
made, who
gets to vote on it, who is qualified and who isn't.
I like being isolated from the network and a non terminal
interface. :)
I can't do that any longer.
I haven't found a "live" interface that works for me.
Good luck. I might be bringing DOS back myself, as I want to
resurrect old systems, which are DOS based.
... Emergency repair procedure #1: Kick it.Haha true! :D
...put in the server names that Joacim's ISP is using.
No.
In any domain-transfer, Name server or DNS situation, I would rather
suggest
playing safe than merely switching name servers.
Ward should not start switching name servers unless he first studies very carefully what DNS records are on those existing name servers.
Unless Joacim is running a commercial-grade DNS server setup and has replicated the existing DNS structure, and his ISP is okay with the
level of DNS queries, please do NOT suggest merely switching name servers.
August Abolins wrote to nathanael culver <=-
You see it the same way I do. Fidonet was 1-6. Now, 1-4. It
could become 1-2 someday. Then, why not just 1 that spans
globally? 1 that represents a unified cooperative happy family.
OK, but one could argue similarly against gating Fidonet to fidonet.* or alt.bbs.fidonet.* newsgroups too. :)
That has been experimented with. I tried that with the IEEE echo and comp.org.ieee, briefly.
I know Usenet is routinely gated to Fidonet and other FTNs, and I had a suspicion that there were experiments done in the other direction too.
On 03-17-19 06:15, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
It was working both ways in IEEE quite nicely. But the
professional-speak in comp.org.ieee did not appeal to many fido sysops. But there were still interesting announcements from the tech world.
There was little traffic in the IEEE -> comp.org.ieee direction, except
my own!
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
Mmm... I thought Multimail was pretty bloody good... last century. Aarrrgh! Yes! QWK mail. The light bulb lit. Oh, yes. You have my sympathy. ;)
I've never been a big fan of online interfaces and the machine is not
local.
Such back references are a pain to follow, that's now in my "past". :(
sounds like some software could use a threading model which makes it
easy to go back through threads and even to list posts so they can
easily be read and then return to where one was in their reading ;)
The interface would validate all fields, so that the nodelist data at least conformed to standards (of course, there's still a degree of "GIGO", but that goes for any human entered content ;) ).
already done and handled since eons... just no web interface where you
have to employ more security than necessary to prevent bots and humans
from attacking, changing others' entries, submitting invalid/false data, etc...
a NC/HUB should know who is in their segment and not just rubber
stamp what is sent to them for processing...
the RCs/ZCs have to have
some trust in their NCs but they should also still check the segments
they generate to send upstream...
how do you know if/when invalid data gets in? i'm speaking of data that passes the tests but is still invalid/incorrect...
..I don't see why in 2019 we need to be relying so heavily on
humans to
validate syntax that can be done by machine. Let the machine do that
and let
the people look at the _content_.
On 03-17-19 07:21, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
That would be a good test of comprehension and competence and leave the the human NC/HUB alone to get on with their life until a successful netmail with that validated data is submitted.
[I've attempted to do my 1st crosspost to FUTURE4FIDO with this
message.]
On 03-16-19 12:42, Ward Dossche wrote to TERRY ROATI <=-
Next, before I move/change anything I need someone to explain to me what the functionality of these lines is:
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
These tell DNS the nameservers to use when looking up .fidonet.org addresses. But this looks like a copy and paste from something, and I'd like to see more to get the proper context.
On 03-16-19 23:15, Rob Swindell wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Re: Re: Fidonet => one unizone
By: Tony Langdon to Ward Dossche on Sun Mar 17 2019 11:37 am
On 03-16-19 12:42, Ward Dossche wrote to TERRY ROATI <=-
Next, before I move/change anything I need someone to explain to me what the functionality of these lines is:
Name Server: NS.BOFH.IT
Name Server: NS.FIDONET.ORG.UA
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
fidonet.org. 86400 IN SOA ns.bofh.it.
md.linux.it. 2014070
You see it the same way I do. Fidonet was 1-6. Now, 1-4. It could become 1-2 someday. Then, why not just 1 that spans globally? 1 that represents a unified cooperative happy family.
what is the advantage of all having the same number
of having differing zone numbers? With different zone numbers we get an idea of where in the world the writer is.
On 03-16-19 22:04, Nick Andre wrote to August Abolins <=-
Unless Joacim is running a commercial-grade DNS server setup and has
replicated the existing DNS structure, and his ISP is okay with the
level of DNS queries, please do NOT suggest merely switching name
servers.
I'm inclined to agree. One needs to know what the domain is actually being used for, and what the implications of changing things are. From there, it's a case of proceed very carefully.
At best, you're going to piss someone off, at worst, cause major issues for lots of people, unless this is approached very carefully. First
step is to investigate - ask questions, gather information, etc.
... Amiga: The Computer They Couldn't Kill
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au
(3:633/410)
Fidonet is about communication.
Not just the technology that
makes it possible for folks to communicate with others.
Following the herd is what most folks have done throughout history.
To realize change, one has to demonstrate, that it can be done.
If a new technology or procedure has a future, it will be used.
Telling others, what should be done or developed, does not work in
technology.
"Change is hard." ~US President Barack Obama
Throughout his life in politics, Barack Obama has had to demonstrate
that change is not only possible, but that it can be done. Rather
than just talk about change, he acted. What worked was usually kept.
What did not work, was usually ditched.
Instant opinions on someones intelligence are never productive in
any
discussion.
That's what twitter is for.
August Abolins wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I wonder if this topic might be best in another echo. Would the
exisiting FUTURE4FIDO work?
David Drummond wrote to August Abolins <=-
As our software requires data in the zone field, what is the advantage
of all having the same number - or should I ask what is the
disadvantage of having differing zone numbers? With different zone
numbers we get an idea of where in the world the writer is.
Tony Langdon wrote to Paul Quinn <=-
... Toto, I don't think we're in DOS any more...Nope, largely left it behind years ago. ;)
Good luck. I might be bringing DOS back myself, as I want to resurrect old systems, which are DOS based.
what is the advantage of all having the same number
No more zone wars?
How about a reduction of bureaucracy?
Having multiple zones was an advantage back when calls were expensive andeach zone
encompassed thousands of nodes. Today there are no calls to pay for, and there may even still be a thousand Fidonet nodes left worldwide -- mostwith
only a single user. Having multiple zones to manage the dregs that remainis
stupidly redundant.
Didn't I just read that all of Zone 5 consists of a single
node? And now there's talk of reviving Zone 6 for what? three nodes?
Just why?
of having differing zone numbers? With different zone numbers we get an
idea of where in the world the writer is.
I really don't get this obsession with geography. Why do we care where in the world someone is?
In any case, at best all the zone number tells you isthe
where the node I posted from is; I could literally be telneting in from
other side of the planet.
In some of the othernets I'm subscribed to, my NC
literally IS half a planet away and no one cares.
If you *really* want to know where I am, you can check the nodelist. Myzone
number isn't going to tell you.
I wonder if this topic might be best in another echo. Would the
exisiting FUTURE4FIDO work?
I've never heard of that echo - another problem Fidonet has is with so
many dead echoes it's hard to find the live ones. I don't think I've
ever seen that echotag on the STATS echo, is it alive?
But next weekend, I'm off to Melbourne to
compete in the Victorian Masters athletics. A few sprints and hurdles
are on the program for me ;) I balance my nerdy pursuits with a lot of
exercise. :)
I bought a 31ft 3 cabin sailyacht, full galley, toilet ... and the weather is becoming sailable.
The nerd can come along. There's wifi and my point on a tablet.
On 03-17-19 08:37, Kurt Weiske wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I do most of my BBSing through vDos under Windows, using MultiMail and Qedit - essentially the same setup I've used since setting up a mail
door in Maximus in 1993.
On 03-17-19 07:47, Kurt Weiske wrote to August Abolins <=-
I've never heard of that echo - another problem Fidonet has is with so many dead echoes it's hard to find the live ones. I don't think I've
ever seen that echotag on the STATS echo, is it alive?
I've been linked for ages as it turns out, but no traffic seen here.
Of course, I might be in favour of one world zone number if that zone was to be "2" and managed from within Russia - after all that is where the vast majority of the nodelisted are.
I do mine nativer in the desktop OS that I'm using at the time - Windows or Linux, with SyncTerm and Multimail. :)
Do you honestly think that the "zone wars" are about what zone number appears in our addresses? You don't think it is about the culture
But our software demands that "redundant" zone number - regardless of
Ah, an advocate of one world government?
Knowing that one comes from a different country can help one understand why certain people respond the way they do to some posts. What may seem
You could but as a sysop you tend to post from your own system.
Othernets are of no consequence to the operations of Fidonet.
Do you honestly think that making us all the same zone number will
achieve a similar idea?
I remember seeing that echo at one time. I don't think I ever connected the area.
In any domain-transfer, Name server or DNS situation, I would rather
suggest
playing safe than merely switching name servers.
But it is safe. It is easy to put in another DNS at any time, or clear tho fields. Updating those DNS fields is not a "transfer" (which would requir
I say Fido could/should go to ONLY Zone 1, and keep zones 2-6 out
of circulation for historical/sentimental reasons. All other nets
can be Zone 7+ (as they already are).
A good captcha at the front door would foil the bots.
No one would be able to change another entry. A valid change could be approved after a valid netmail to prove proper FTN setup.
I remember seeing that echo at one time. I don't think I ever connected
the area.
AREAFIX tells me I'm linked to future4fido, but I'll be doggoned if I can find it in my echo list.
I remember seeing that echo at one time. I don't think I ever connected
the area.
AREAFIX tells me I'm linked to future4fido, but I'll be doggoned if I can find it in my echo list.
AREAFIX tells me I'm linked to future4fido, but I'll be doggoned if I ca find it in my echo list.I've connected the area now, I'm linked to a node in Z2 and have seen posts from a couple people in Z1 and 2 but not seen any other traffic
On 03-17-19 17:33, Alan Ianson wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I've been linked for ages as it turns out, but no traffic seen here.
I just connected and sent a hello world message in there. Hopefully
you'll see it.
On 03-17-19 19:43, Kurt Weiske wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
What do you use for an editor? If I could find a 32-bit console editor
I liked with Wordstar bindings I'd be able to retire my old DOS
As our software requires data in the zone field, what is the advantage
of all having the same number - or should I ask what is the
disadvantage of having differing zone numbers? With different zone
numbers we get an idea of where in the world the writer is.
Does it matter where in the world the writer is from, or do the words matter?
pool? IOf course, I might be in favour of one world zone number if that zone was
to be "2" and managed from within Russia - after all that is where the vast
majority of the nodelisted are.
Ok, who won the "bickering about which zone to collapse Fidonet into"
had 5 days, which appears to be overly optimistic.
I think it was more about power and egos than culture, and yes, the additional layer in the hierarchy exacerbated things by facilitating the growth of fiefdoms within Fidonet.
But our software demands that "redundant" zone number - regardless of
The technology demands *A* zone number; it doesn't require multiple redundant zone numbers.
Othernets all run with a single zone number.
countriesAh, an advocate of one world government?
Umm, no. I'm talking about network topology, not global hegemonies.
Knowing that one comes from a different country can help one understand
why certain people respond the way they do to some posts.
One is not one's culture. In my life I have lived in over a dozen
scattered across all seven continents (yes, including Antarctica; trust me -- penguins stink!).
Through all that it has been my experience that peopleshow
are just people, and everyone responds pretty much to the same things:
basic respect to others and they'll do the same. Individual differencesare
far greater than cultural ones and you can't encapsulate that in a zone number.
In any case, in the absence of an intimate knowledge of Zimbabwean culture, how does it help me to know a poster is from Zimbabwe?
whereYou could but as a sysop you tend to post from your own system.
But your argument was that geographically assigned zone numbers tell us
the poster is from. Now you're arguing that it's less about the zonenumber
and more about your assumptions.
Yes, I do mostly post from my own system. My assertion stands. Neither Inor
my system is located geographically within the zone I am assigned to. Only the nodelist will tell you where I am. And even at that, I am an ex-pat. Knowing that I am in Taiwan wouldn't tell you anything about meculturally.
multipleOthernets are of no consequence to the operations of Fidonet.
FTN-based othernets serve as a reminder that the arugments in favor of
nodes in Fidonet are not technological, but political.
"oneDo you honestly think that making us all the same zone number will
achieve a similar idea?
I don't know where this came from. Literally no one is advocating for a
world government".
Terry,
Roughly how many systems will it take to revive Zone 6, at the moment I TR>> know of 3 active systems in Asia, 1 in Taiwan, 1 in Singapore and 1 in TR>> Philippines?
Whatever number of active people willing to give it a shot. If there
are 3 as a start, then that's better than nothing. You need to start somewhere.
Personally I would not like to see a one-node zone again as Z5 has been for quite a while.
I would be quite OK with 3 one-node regions and see where it takes us. These three people could maintain their present status where-ever they
are until such a time when a revived Z6 really takes off. And if it doesn't we trashcan that revived Z6 and nothing's lost.
\%/@rd
--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)
If "othernets are such an ideal environment why are their advocates wasting their time in Fidonet?
Could you email me sysop @ tfb-bbs.org
You are an exception to the greater numbers in Fidonet.
Yet it has been advocated that we should all use "Z1" the zone relegated to the most hated nation in the western world. Surely we don't all want
Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I say Fido could/should go to ONLY Zone 1, and keep zones 2-6 out
of circulation for historical/sentimental reasons. All other nets
can be Zone 7+ (as they already are).
It may be "technically correct" that only one Zone is needed in
Fidonet given our numbers, but theres no way to convince people
to change their address.
Especially to Zone 1 which has a
notorious history of zone-wars, power trips and general
stupidity, bullshit and bad decisions. Couple this with the
rediculous idea being tossed around of a completely unnecessary web-nodelist-management system and its just a recipe for
disaster.
Many Sysops zone-wide just can't get over the past events which
have permanently destroyed credibility and something called
"trust".
As I just wrote... Russia takes Fidonet a tad bit more seriously
and if you glance at a recent nodelist, skip down to Region 50.
Keep in mind that BinkD and HPT and likely other cool stuff comes
from there. They are not stupid.
There is not enough vodka in the world to convince them to move
to Zone 1, so I guess all of them will be kept out of circulation
for historical/sentimental reasons?
Tony Langdon wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
But I wonder if there's a Windows port of "joe", which is a *NIX editor that has Wordstar key bindings.
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
Re: Re: Fidonet => one unizonspin, you'd
By: Dan Clough to Nick Andre on Mon Mar 18 2019 08:55 am
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
I'd like to know the answer to this one too.
If touching the slightest thing is going to send their world into a
think they would maintain at least a presence on some of these echoes.
If "othernets are such an ideal environment why are their advocates
wasting their time in Fidonet?
FOMO.
forYou are an exception to the greater numbers in Fidonet.
But I am not an exception to human beings. And as I said, individual personalities vary far more than cultural differences do.
Yet it has been advocated that we should all use "Z1" the zone relegated
to the most hated nation in the western world. Surely we don't all want
If you reread the posts you'll discover the reasons that have been floated
using Zone 1 have nothing to do with politics. 2 works as well, if you'd rather.
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
question...
you'dIt's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
I'd like to know the answer to this one too.
If touching the slightest thing is going to send their world into a spin,
think they would maintain at least a presence on some of these echoes.
If touching the slightest thing is going to send their world into aspin, you'd
think they would maintain at least a presence on some of these echoes.
I haven't seen them lately. Perhaps it's their government controlling
their feed(s) out of the country
alexander koryagin wrote to Dan Clough <=-
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.fidonews 2019
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
question...
Because certain persons of anal mentality insist that we only
communicate in these echoes in some form of English.
David Drummond wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
If "othernets are such an ideal environment why are their advocates
wasting their time in Fidonet?
FOMO.
I must lead a sheltered life - I had to Google that expression.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Robert Stinnett wrote to Dan Clough <=-
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
I'd like to know the answer to this one too.
If touching the slightest thing is going to send their world into
a spin, you'd think they would maintain at least a presence on
some of these echoes.
I think David Drummond answered you already, and that's surely the
reason (language barriers). I'm sure some speak some English, but effectively that is a huge problem for most.
Sometimes I think we (including myself) forget that the entire
world doesn't speak English...
OK, so I take it you're like the Zone 2 folks who will resist all
change, regardless of merit?
Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-
OK, so I take it you're like the Zone 2 folks who will resist all
change, regardless of merit?
Its real easy to write me off as someone reisting change, when I
have done more to help people here and in "real life" than you
can ever understand. I guess I just do not see the merit in me
being ZC1 and have to tell others that you must migrate to my
zone, or be left behind for historial/sentimental reasons as you
say.
Cue to the Zone-wars all over again... and if not me, well then
get Ward to move everyone from Zone 1 to Zone 2. Oh you Eurotrash socialist shit-pig pussy, Europe sucks, nobody will tell me how
to run my system, and I can't believe Nick is going along with
this, blah blah blah.
Maybe those who see merit in this little utopian exodus
fantasy-land of "One zone to rule them all" should've first
Netmailed the ZC's to see how we felt? Share some stories one on
one without know-it-alls or trolls chiming in? Get some friendly
insight?
You know what idea I would seriously get behind? BETTER SOFTWARE
for newcomers, instead of masturbatory zone-ruling fantasies.
Tony Langdon wrote to Nick Andre <=-
However, everything is working, and others have pointed out there's
nodes with abandonware registrations likely tied to their node number. There's no reason why we can't continue to use 4 zones (providing the smaller zones don't lose too many nodes). Let's work on something more important.
You know what idea I would seriously get behind? BETTER SOFTWARE for newcomers, instead of masturbatory zone-ruling fantasies.
Hi, Bob Ackley!like
I read your message from 18.03.2019 16:11
BA> A couple of (presumably) Russians used to post in this echo -
BA> although I haven't seen them lately. Perhaps it's their
BA> government controlling their feed(s) out of the country
You better tell me when will the US wage a civil war in Venezuela,
it did in Syria?
On 03-20-19 08:45, Kurt Weiske wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I think leaving the zones in place, but cleaning up the nodelist would
go a long way. I've spent the last couple of years collapsing legacy
nets where it makes sense (when there's no need for a geographical net, since all of the nodes are IP only)
We could have one region with one IP net and a couple of smaller nets (only when needed). That would streamline routing.
You know what idea I would seriously get behind? BETTER SOFTWARE for newcomers, instead of masturbatory zone-ruling fantasies.
Mystic is ahead of Synchronet in having had a mailer built-in for
longer, but now that with either you could configure an integrated
mailer and filefix together, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a HOWTO for FTN.
Because certain persons of anal mentality insist that we only
communicate in these echoes in some form of English.
Ahhhh, well that would certainly explain it.
It would be kind of a mess if there were multiple languages being
used in echo(s), though. I can't think of a very good solution to
that issue. Are there "Zonal echos" that are in a specific
language, then?
Sometimes I think we (including myself) forget that the entire
world doesn't speak English...
Ok, I can understand that. However, right now we are in a situationbecause we
can't move forward without breaking their stuff.
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
You are russian hacker? ;)
I prefer to penetrate right into American brains. ;=)
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
The Russians are coming! ;)
Is limiting Fidonet to one zone moving "forward" or moving "backward". Fidonet was effectively one zone once and we "moved forward" from that.
David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Because certain persons of anal mentality insist that we only
communicate in these echoes in some form of English.
Ahhhh, well that would certainly explain it.
It would be kind of a mess if there were multiple languages being
used in echo(s), though. I can't think of a very good solution to
that issue. Are there "Zonal echos" that are in a specific
language, then?
And yet this echo, and some of the sysop echoes are global - not
zone specific.
Should the language written in the messages in those echoes be
mandated to be a language that is not that which the majority of Fidonetters use?
David Drummond wrote to Robert Stinnett <=-
Is limiting Fidonet to one zone moving "forward" or moving
"backward". Fidonet was effectively one zone once and we "moved
forward" from that.
Is change for the sake of change any more advantage than sticking
to tradition because "that's how we've always done it"?
Is limiting Fidonet to one zone moving "forward" or moving "backward".
Fidonet was effectively one zone once and we "moved forward" from that.
It goes far deeper than zones. We can't even update a simple websiteright
now. It will only get worse.
On 03-21-19 09:33, David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On 20/03/2019 13:35, Tony Langdon -> alexander koryagin wrote:
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
The Russians are coming! ;)
Good movie :)
Should the language written in the messages in those echoes be mandated to be a language that is not that which the majority of Fidonetters use?
However, nearly ALL native English speakers have
very little or ZERO ability with any other language.
Fidonet has been operating perfectly well since long before the "web" was
"1.0 Language
The official language of FidoNet is English. All documents
must exist in English. Translation into other languages is encouraged".
However, nearly ALL native English speakers have
very little or ZERO ability with any other language.
while Canada has a sizeable English/French bilingual population.
That is from P4 but the reality is there is more russian being spoken by
so if we want to switch to Chinese
On 21/03/2019 10:55, Robert Stinnett -> David Drummond wrote:
Is limiting Fidonet to one zone moving "forward" or moving "backward".
Fidonet was effectively one zone once and we "moved forward" from that.
It goes far deeper than zones. We can't even update a simple website right now. It will only get worse.
Could it be that Fidonet is its own network, a network that does not include websites?
Fidonet has been operating perfectly well since long before the "web" was available to us. Whether or not we have operational websites in the future is of no consequence. Fidonet is about "archaic" technology, not "the web".
I'm multilingual myself, so if we want to switch to Chinese
or Tok Pisin, I'm in :-)
The other day, someone objected to the idea of combining zones (an architectural oddity of Fidonet that was built to support the legacy
phone system and is totally irrelevant today) because, "what if
Fidonet becomes popular again and we need multiple zones?" Well,
the reality is that that is just not going to happen. Ever. That
is optimizing for a case that will not happen.
The other day, someone objected to the idea of combining zones (an architectural oddity of Fidonet that was built to support the legacy phone system and is totally irrelevant today) because, "what if
Fidonet becomes popular again and we need multiple zones?" Well,
the reality is that that is just not going to happen. Ever. That
is optimizing for a case that will not happen.
Just so you are aware, from what I heard there is a meeting being planned in Manilla to relaunch zone-6.
If they can pull it off, they have my full support.
Can't be done? Chances are these guys may very well do exactly that.
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just
created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would
anyone other than a couple of people notice?
*MSGID: 2:292/854 11334266
*REPLY: 3:712/886 748fc468
I'm multilingual myself, so if we want to switch to Chinese
or Tok Pisin, I'm in :-)
So it is absolutely possible to have a Pisin match? 8-)
Tony Langdon wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Synchronet and Mystic are both light years ahead of what we ran in the 90s. And even better, if you _want_ a mailer with more advanced capabilities than the one that comes with either package, you can use a separate mailer. I run binkd with Synchronet, because that's what I originally ran with it, and it works. I already know binkd and I like
its feature set. I could switch to BinkIT and go 100% Synchronet, but
I'm happy the way things are. And it works well.
As for ease of use, between the two, I'd give that score to Mystic, but OTOH, Synchronet does have some pretty powerful capabilities under the hood, especially in regards to Internet integration. Suffice to say
that I like both, for different reasons. :)
David Drummond wrote to Robert Stinnett <=-
Fidonet has been operating perfectly well since long before the "web"
was available to us. Whether or not we have operational websites in the future is of no consequence. Fidonet is about "archaic" technology, not "the web".
Dan Cross wrote to David Drummond <=-
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just
created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would anyone other than a couple of people notice?
On 21 Mar 19 09:42:33, Dan Cross said the following to David Drummond:
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would anyone other than a couple of people notice?
I'm not sure I understand. If you mean use the Fidonet software to start up their own network away from Fidonet, its already been done for decades, they are called Othernets. Fsxnet, Dovenet, Micronet are excellent examples.
If you mean just branch off and establish your own Fidonet structure; sure but all that it does is further cause a divide and animosity by leaving behind people that you just can't get along with. Effectively you will have "two Fidonets" and both will have fun trying to explain why the other exists. And right back to zone-wars, you-suck and my-way-is-the-best-way troll fests.
Hi Dan,
The other day, someone objected to the idea of combining zones (an architectural oddity of Fidonet that was built to support the legacy
phone system and is totally irrelevant today) because, "what if
Fidonet becomes popular again and we need multiple zones?" Well,
the reality is that that is just not going to happen. Ever. That
is optimizing for a case that will not happen.
Just so you are aware, from what I heard there is a meeting being
planned in Manilla to relaunch zone-6.
If they can pull it off, they have my full support.
Can't be done? Chances are these guys may very well do exactly
that.
I'd given Mystic serious thought; at the time Synchronet didn't have a mailer or tick manager. What's keeping me on Synchronet now is years
worth of echomail in Synchronet's message bases. I'd hate to lose that history.
So it is absolutely possible to have a Pisin match? 8-)
On 03-21-19 09:06, Kurt Weiske wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I was tempted to go with Binkd, my eventual plan is to get the BBS
off of Windows and onto a Linux BBS. Either would have worked, but I
flipped a coin one weekend - literally. :)
I'd given Mystic serious thought; at the time Synchronet didn't have a mailer or tick manager. What's keeping me on Synchronet now is years
worth of echomail in Synchronet's message bases. I'd hate to lose that history.
.... If someone wants to restart a zone,
they are doing so as an academic exercise.
.... If someone wants to restart a zone,
they are doing so as an academic exercise.
Part of Fidonet also is having fun. And if these guys want to have fun by taking a shot at it then there's nothing available to me to stop them. So better help them.
I can understand they feel they belong in a niche of their own.
Part of Fidonet also is having fun. And if these guys want to have fun
by taking a shot at it then there's nothing available to me to stop
them. So better help them.
Great! So you'll assist with fidonet.io and fixing up the
fidonet.org domain too, right?
Perhaps help putting together
some kind of automated node number assignment system?
Physician, heal thyself! Those who feel they belong in a niche
by themselves are those who seem dead set against any sort of
progressive change on Fidonet.
There is a rumour that GoldEd can read SBBS message areas. Check for SuperBBS or SBBS in the gold_ref.txt in the editor's package. With that, you could copy from SBBS to JAM format.
You could import that into Mystic, if you temporarily set Mystic up as a QWK node, and set Synchronet to export all messages, including messages from you to that user.
There is a rumour that GoldEd can read SBBS message areas. Check
for SuperBBS or SBBS in the gold_ref.txt in the editor's package.
With that, you could copy from SBBS to JAM format.
Worth a check - thanks for the pointer!
Part of Fidonet also is having fun. And if these guys want to have fun by taking a shot at it then there's nothing available to me to stop them. So better help them.
Great! So you'll assist with fidonet.io and fixing up the
fidonet.org domain too, right?
Certainly the fidonet.org-domain...
Perhaps help putting together
some kind of automated node number assignment system?
I leave the "walking the walk"-part to the people who are "talking the talk".
Physician, heal thyself! Those who feel they belong in a niche
by themselves are those who seem dead set against any sort of progressive change on Fidonet.
It must be such a reassuring sentiment knowing all the answers, even to questions which haven't been asked yet.
On 03-21-19 16:52, Kurt Weiske wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Re: Re: Fidonet => one unizon
By: Tony Langdon to Kurt Weiske on Fri Mar 22 2019 07:49 am
You could import that into Mystic, if you temporarily set Mystic up as a QWK node, and set Synchronet to export all messages, including messages from you to that user.
Oh, that would work - why didn't I think of that?
On 03-22-19 08:00, Paul Quinn wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
There is a rumour that GoldEd can read SBBS message areas. Check for SuperBBS or SBBS in the gold_ref.txt in the editor's package. With
that, you could copy from SBBS to JAM format.
On 03-21-19 23:26, Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Cross <=-
.... If someone wants to restart a zone,
they are doing so as an academic exercise.
Part of Fidonet also is having fun. And if these guys want to have fun
by taking a shot at it then there's nothing available to me to stop
them. So better help them.
Is change for the sake of change any more advantage than sticking
to tradition because "that's how we've always done it"?
No, it isn't. But the question at hand here is not as simple as
you phrased it right there.
Fidonet has been operating perfectly well since long before the"web" was
You have a strange definition of "perfectly well", me thinks.
[...]Could it be that Fidonet is its own network, a network that does not include
websites?
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Fidonet is its own network
full of old men shouting at clouds and waiting for the good old days
to magically reappear. That may be overly harsh, but it certainly
is suffering from a fair amount of Founder's Syndrome (even though
the current people in charge aren't "founders" in the traditional
sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome
How many nodes are ACTUALLY on Fidonet now days? Several hundred?
The heyday of tens of thousands is gone and not coming back. If the people who don't want to change are so set against change, why not
declare yourselves to be "Fidonet Legacy" and relinquish the name to
those who might actually want to change things around?
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just
created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would anyone other than a couple of people notice?
Fidonet has been operating perfectly well since long before the "web"
was available to us. Whether or not we have operational websites in the
future is of no consequence. Fidonet is about "archaic" technology, not
"the web".
If we want new sysops/opinions/perspectives, we need to be able to advertise. The web is most effective way.
Great! So you'll assist with fidonet.io and fixing up the
fidonet.org domain too, right?
Certainly the fidonet.org-domain...
That of course begs the question, "why hasn't it been done
in 16 years?"
On 03-22-19 08:00, Paul Quinn wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
you could copy from SBBS to JAM format.
I have heard this, but also led to believe there's some limitations. Haven't tried it, because I'd have to run it remotely over SSH anyway.
On 03-22-19 16:01, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
There's not a lot involved. Just get GoldEd to read the area, mark
blocks & copy to the JAM area.
SSH can be fun. It has been for me so far. ;)
One of these days, I will have to install GoldEd+ on my Pi. :)
David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Is change for the sake of change any more advantage than sticking
to tradition because "that's how we've always done it"?
No, it isn't. But the question at hand here is not as simple as
you phrased it right there.
Then what is the advantage to Fidonet as a whole to redo our
addressing system?
On 22/03/2019 00:42, Dan Cross -> David Drummond wrote:
Could it be that Fidonet is its own network, a network that does not include
websites?
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Fidonet is its own network[...]
full of old men shouting at clouds and waiting for the good old days
to magically reappear. That may be overly harsh, but it certainly
is suffering from a fair amount of Founder's Syndrome (even though
the current people in charge aren't "founders" in the traditional sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome
How many nodes are ACTUALLY on Fidonet now days? Several hundred?
The heyday of tens of thousands is gone and not coming back. If the people who don't want to change are so set against change, why not declare yourselves to be "Fidonet Legacy" and relinquish the name to those who might actually want to change things around?
So... the Fidonet that I have been part of, and happy with for more than 3 decades should change its name because some "johhny come lately" wants to change it into something different?
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would anyone other than a couple of people notice?
That is what the Othernets do - isn't it?
It does sound like the logical choice - if one wants something that Fidonet isn't then start up a network that suits those requirements.
On 22/03/2019 11:40, Dan Cross -> Ward Dossche wrote:
Great! So you'll assist with fidonet.io and fixing up the
fidonet.org domain too, right?
Certainly the fidonet.org-domain...
That of course begs the question, "why hasn't it been done
in 16 years?"
Fidonet is not a legal entity - and has no ownership rights of any domain name.
All domain names that appear to be Fidonet related are owned by other individuals.
On 22/03/2019 02:22, Kurt Weiske -> David Drummond wrote:
Fidonet has been operating perfectly well since long before the "web"
was available to us. Whether or not we have operational websites in the
future is of no consequence. Fidonet is about "archaic" technology, not
"the web".
If we want new sysops/opinions/perspectives, we need to be able to advertise. The web is most effective way.
I wonder how Fidonet has managed to last more than 30 years with no real Web presence...
Fidonet is not a legal entity - and has no ownership rights of any
domain name.
David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Then what is the advantage to Fidonet as a whole to redo our addressing system?
On 03-22-19 09:21, Deon George wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On 22 Mar 2019, Tony Langdon said the following...
One of these days, I will have to install GoldEd+ on my Pi. :)
I'm made it into a DEB if that helps. Saves compiling...
Depends what distro it's for. My Pis are older installations - Raspian Wheezy.
goingThen what is the advantage to Fidonet as a whole to redo our
addressing system?
That's a difficult question to answer because of each person's
differing idea of what the definition of "advantage" is... I'll
try to answer using *MY* definition and reasoning:
It would amount to what we call here in the US a "spring
cleaning". A chance to get rid of the old cruft and useless junk
that clutters up our houses, and our nodelists.
Everybody gets a Zone 1 (or 2, or 3, whatever) address, and by carefully
through that during the re-assigning process, most (all?) of the dead/useless entries in there go away. Now, does that help the
flow of mail work any better? Maybe not. But it's still a good
thing. It would simplify the process of nodelist updates and distribution.
If every member of Fidonet was in the same Zone, wouldn't that put
a stop to the so-called "Zone Wars"?
Yes, a few *C's might lose their titles and that would probably piss themoff, but perhaps
they could get over it in time.
Now, I want to make one thing clear. I have spoken out in favor
of consolidating the Zones, yes. But that isn't really the
central issue here to me. I can live with keeping the zones the
way they are. The original focus of this whole discussion was (I
think) the topic of how hard it is for potential new Fido sysops
to get useful information on how to join, and the pathetic shape
that the web site(s) are in.
Let's not lose sight of that. As far as I'm concerned we can forgetabout the Zone thing and try to
reach some consensus on what can be done to improve the public
"face" of FidoNet. That's all I'm really after.
So... the Fidonet that I have been part of, and happy with for more than 3
decades should change its name because some "johhny come lately" wants to
change it into something different?
No. It should change it's name because other people want
to make forward-looking changes that are either backwards
incompatible or otherwise unacceptable to those who refuse
to change anything at all.
By the way, your _current_ logical fallacy is a combination
of "No True Scotsman" and "Appeal to Tradition."
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just
created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would
anyone other than a couple of people notice?
That is what the Othernets do - isn't it?
It does sound like the logical choice - if one wants something that Fidonet
isn't then start up a network that suits those requirements.
Cool. We'll call it "Fidonet" and use zone 1 for all the
hosts,
or come up with better technology for conference distribution.
I wonder how Fidonet has managed to last more than 30 years with no real Web
presence...
It hasn't.
It's been dying an asymptotic death for 25 years,
since the Internet started to become commercialized and people
realized they didn't have to kowtow to the hierarchy because
it wasn't a monopoly anymore.
Also, define "last": if it gets down to the point of being exactly
three MS-DOS computers exchanging data, is that still considered
to be "lasting"?
You're not far from that now because no one can figure out how to
join the thing since information isn't publicly available outside
the walled garden of the existing network.
Those who stick out the haze fest to get a node number quickly
tire of the infighting. There was a reason it was called,
"fight-o-net" back in the day and it obviously hasn't changed
That of course begs the question, "why hasn't it been done
in 16 years?"
Fidonet is not a legal entity - and has no ownership rights of any domain
name.
All domain names that appear to be Fidonet related are owned by other
individuals.
Great! So I'll pay US $500 to someone for the fidonet.org domain
name so I can point `www.fidonet.org` to fidonet.io. Anyone want
to sell it?
But that doesn't answer the question at all.
Fidonet is not a legal entity - and has no ownership rights of any
domain name.
Careful, this depends on the country and jurisdiction you're under.
Under German law, FidoNet is probably something like a "club" which may
or may not be regarded as a "legal entitity" (whatever that might be
under German law). And who knows about the status in other countries?
Then what is the advantage to Fidonet as a whole to redo our addressing
system?
After thinking this discussion through, probably not much advantage,
given that now with the advent of continuous mailers and binkp we can effectively crashmail most any node in Fidonet, instead of relying on
zone gates and toll calls.
There are some here helping to test that listed nodes are available
and haven't fallen off, and as RCs and NCs treat attrition reasonably
(by removing dead nodes, creating IP nets when geographic nets are no longer needed and consolidating in their own areas when possible) I
think we'll be in a better place.
On 23/03/2019 00:43, Dan Cross -> David Drummond wrote:
So... the Fidonet that I have been part of, and happy with for more than 3
decades should change its name because some "johhny come lately" wants to
change it into something different?
No. It should change it's name because other people want
to make forward-looking changes that are either backwards
incompatible or otherwise unacceptable to those who refuse
to change anything at all.
Fucking up the addressing structure is NOT looking forward.
By the way, your _current_ logical fallacy is a combination
of "No True Scotsman" and "Appeal to Tradition."
Huh?
Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just
created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network? Would
anyone other than a couple of people notice?
That is what the Othernets do - isn't it?
It does sound like the logical choice - if one wants something that Fidonet
isn't then start up a network that suits those requirements.
Cool. We'll call it "Fidonet" and use zone 1 for all the
hosts,
We already have a Fidonet entity - with a Zone 1. How can you "re-invent" that?
It doesn't matter what you call your "Fidonet", the name is not part of the addressing model.
That you put all of your nodes in Z1 will not matter either -
it only takes one zone gate to link the other zones to your "Z1"
or come up with better technology for conference distribution.
The Europeans have already come up with a better technology for conference distribution - have you looked at that model?
On 23/03/2019 00:56, Dan Cross -> David Drummond wrote:
I wonder how Fidonet has managed to last more than 30 years
with no real Web presence...
It hasn't.
You are mistaken - we are communicating now via the phenomenon of Fidonet.
Yes, it is not as prolific as it was during its hey day but it still exists.
It's been dying an asymptotic death for 25 years,
since the Internet started to become commercialized and people
realized they didn't have to kowtow to the hierarchy because
it wasn't a monopoly anymore.
And that "hierarchy" was all based in USA - in Z1. That is the origin of the "zone wars".
Also, define "last": if it gets down to the point of being exactly three MS-DOS computers exchanging data, is that still considered
to be "lasting"?
Yes. Until the penultimate node shuts down there is still the network.
You're not far from that now because no one can figure out how to
join the thing since information isn't publicly available outside
the walled garden of the existing network.
It is that walled garden that makes it a network - otherwise it is just another useless piece of the WWW.
Those who stick out the haze fest to get a node number quickly
tire of the infighting. There was a reason it was called, "fight-o-net" back in the day and it obviously hasn't changed
Then why are you here? Why are you not enjoying the utopia of a single zone othernet where everyone is of one exact same mind?
On 23/03/2019 00:58, Dan Cross -> David Drummond wrote:
That of course begs the question, "why hasn't it been done
in 16 years?"
Fidonet is not a legal entity - and has no ownership rights of any domain
name.
All domain names that appear to be Fidonet related are owned by other
individuals.
Great! So I'll pay US $500 to someone for the fidonet.org domain
name so I can point `www.fidonet.org` to fidonet.io. Anyone want
to sell it?
But that doesn't answer the question at all.
Of course not - as soon as you, the owner of the domain name, lose interest in Fidonet, the site's content drops out of currency.
Fidonet is NOT the WWW. The WWW is NOT Fidonet.
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Let's not lose sight of that. As far as I'm concerned we can
forget about the Zone thing and try to
reach some consensus on what can be done to improve the public
"face" of FidoNet. That's all I'm really after.
Fidonet is similar to Ham radio in that it is a dying concept
populated by some old "stick in the muds" hanging on to times
gone by. As soon as you "modernise" it to have a fabulous flashy
web presence/tech then it ceases to be Fidonet and becomes just
another of the millions of useless websites.
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
Does a club in Germany not have to have elected officials
(chairperson, secretary, treasurer etc)?
Fidonet is a transport technology.
On 03-22-19 22:30, Deon George wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On 22 Mar 2019, Tony Langdon said the following...
Depends what distro it's for. My Pis are older installations - Raspian Wheezy.
OK, its a stretch DEB.
Re: Fidonet => one unizon
By: David Drummond to Kurt Weiske on Sat Mar 23 2019 09:03 am
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to zone 1 - are already in zone 1.The zone number itself really doesn't matter. Arguably,
it shouldn't even be visible to the end user, though that's
another matter. If it makes you happier, why not declare
that everyone shall move to zone 3? Or 7? Or 6? Or 0?
Hello, Dan Cross,
On 23/03/2019 4.44 you wrote:
Re: Fidonet => one unizon
By: David Drummond to Kurt Weiske on Sat Mar 23 2019 09:03 am
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to zone 1 - are already in zone 1.The zone number itself really doesn't matter. Arguably,
it shouldn't even be visible to the end user, though that's
another matter. If it makes you happier, why not declare
that everyone shall move to zone 3? Or 7? Or 6? Or 0?
Why should anyone move to any other zone? There are no overlapping networks anymore, so anyone might use any zone 1,2,3,4 or even 6...
So I could have akas 1:221/360 and 3:221/360 as well as 2:221/360. :)
or come up with better technology for conference distribution.
The Europeans have already come up with a better technology for
conference distribution - have you looked at that model?
Is it called HTTP, RSS, or Atom?
Let me guess: it still relies on zones, regions, nets, and
all the rest of that antiquated nonsense?
And that "hierarchy" was all based in USA - in Z1. That is the origin
of the "zone wars".
I could care less about the ancient history.
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to
zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
The zone number itself really doesn't matter. Arguably,
it shouldn't even be visible to the end user,
Why should anyone move to any other zone? There are no overlapping
networks anymore, so anyone might use any zone 1,2,3,4 or even 6...
The primary reason would be to get rid of "zones" as an archaic relic
of the telephone system.
Fucking up the addressing structure is NOT looking forward.
Right. So consolidating and changing is "fucking up" the
address structure.
By the way, your _current_ logical fallacy is a combination
of "No True Scotsman" and "Appeal to Tradition."
Huh?
A logical fallacy is a type of logical error made in a debate
or argument. Yours appears to be a combination of appeal to
tradition, where you appeal to 3 decades of service as an
argument not to change anything, and "no true scotsman", which
is the idea that one can declare other ideas invalid by
continually making the criteria they have to fit into ever
smaller until they (surprise) do not fit.
Cool. We'll call it "Fidonet" and use zone 1 for all the
hosts,
We already have a Fidonet entity - with a Zone 1. How can you "re-invent"
that?
Simple! Just start using it and ignore the existing network
entirely. If someone wants to be on fidonet, they don't use
the legacy fidonet network.
It doesn't matter what you call your "Fidonet", the name is not part of the
addressing model.
Failure of imagination.
network.That you put all of your nodes in Z1 will not matter either -
it only takes one zone gate to link the other zones to your "Z1"
Or we ignore the existing "zones" and just build a different, parallel
or come up with better technology for conference distribution.
The Europeans have already come up with a better technology for conference
distribution - have you looked at that model?
Is it called HTTP, RSS, or Atom?
Let me guess: it still relies on zones, regions, nets, and
all the rest of that antiquated nonsense?
Nodes are given multidimensional numeric identifiers presented as manfiest constants instead of symbolic names? It has some silly
bit-level protocol for distribution that tries to make a
TCP connection look like a modem? It's tied to legacy file
formats and conventions for filesystems that haven't been
used seriously in 25 years? It uses a binary interchange
format instead of something rationale and structured?
Yeah, that's not "better". That's more of the same.
I wonder how Fidonet has managed to last more than 30 years
with no real Web presence...
It hasn't.
You are mistaken - we are communicating now via the phenomenon ofFidonet.
That "whooshing" sound you hear is the point, saily gently
far over your head.
Yes, it is not as prolific as it was during its hey day but it stillexists.
On average, are more nodes being added per unit time than
are disappearing?
[...] realized they didn't have to kowtow to the hierarchy because
it wasn't a monopoly anymore.
And that "hierarchy" was all based in USA - in Z1. That is theorigin of the "zone wars".
I could care less about the ancient history.
Yes. Until the penultimate node shuts down there is still the network.
Have fun with that!
It is that walled garden that makes it a network - otherwise it is just
another useless piece of the WWW.
So...is USENET a piece of the "WWW"?
Then why are you here? Why are you not enjoying the utopia of a single zone
othernet where everyone is of one exact same mind?
I think Fidonet is clearly the sort of place where "everyone
is of one exact same mind": the inability to _conceive_ of
change is astounding. I am here because I find that both
fairly ridiculous and faintly amazing.
But that doesn't answer the question at all.
Of course not - as soon as you, the owner of the domain name, lose interest
in Fidonet, the site's content drops out of currency.
Fidonet is NOT the WWW. The WWW is NOT Fidonet.
You have mentioned the web now several times, but I don't
think you are saying what you think you are saying.
What's amazing is the resistence to fixing this,
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to
zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
The zone number itself really doesn't matter. Arguably,
it shouldn't even be visible to the end user, though that's
another matter. If it makes you happier, why not declare
that everyone shall move to zone 3? Or 7? Or 6? Or 0?
Why do you care?
trivia: do you know how the NCAA played a part in the development of fidonet? ;)
On 03-23-19 10:57, mark lewis wrote to Dan Cross <=-
how is a user supposed to be able to respond to an echomail message via netmail if they cannot see the node number of the user they are
responding to?? netmail is not limited to sysops even though a lot of
sysops didn't allow their users access to netmail back in the day...
for many, it was limited because of not understanding routing and thus
not wanting to incur more cost for their system's connections to other systems over POTS...
I am *NOT* trying to see FidoNet "modernized" into some flashy web presence. I am against that in every way possible.side of things. A way for a
All I want to see is the public "face" of FidoNet be made (more) accessible via the web (WWW).
Not the actual workings of Fidonet echomail/FDN. Just the "advertising"
potential new Sysop who wants to join Fidonet to be able to easilynodelist. An overview
access the information needed to join.
Who to contact, and how to contact them. Basic policy documents. A
of how it all works. The reason it should be more visible on the
WWW is because THAT IS HOW THINGS ARE DONE THESE DAYS.
People google something they want to find out about, and then expect/want to be directed to some web page to read about it. Not to a
fucking Usenet server, or an ancient website with NOTHING but dead
links on it.
Why is this so abhorrent to the (your words) "stick in the muds"?
Hell, I'm probably in that category myself. I was a Fido sysop
long ago, then I left for a long time due to Real Life (and other factors), and now I'm back.
I'm just trying to promote the idea of making it EASIER for new people tobecome FidoNet sysops. How
can that be considered a BAD THING?
Do we not want to try and keep Fido alive? If nothing is done, Fido willCONTINUE to
decline and eventually die. Why not try to save it? We all know
it will never be the same as it was in the early 90's, but it can
be salvaged and probably grow a little from what it is today.
Can we put aside the bullshit and fears of losing the "old ways",
and just put a shiny new public face
on what curious investigators see when they research what FidoNet is?
Just a fucking workable website is what we're talking about here.
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to
zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
We are?
I find it interesting that those most in favour of us all being moved to
zone 1 - are already in zone 1.
Of course you do.
.. What do you think management's real interests are?
Nope. This is only required if you want to have a "eingetragener Verein" (registered club). That would definitely make you a legal entitity. As a non-registered club, you are still a so-called "Krperschaft" in
Germany, but not a "juristische Person". As my dictionary tells me to translate both terms with "legal entitity" to English, I'm unsure how to explain the difference. ;)
Fidonet is a transport technology.
For Germany, I'm pretty sure it would be seen as a non-registered club.
Surely it would have to be done away with - if it is the same number for everyone it would be redundant.
A couple of (presumably) Russians used to post in this echo -
although I haven't seen them lately. Perhaps it's their
government controlling their feed(s) out of the country
You better tell me when will the US wage a civil war in Venezuela,
like it did in Syria?
I don't think that'll happen.
The war in Syria had been going on for years before Obama sent US
troops there
For a while the US follows the same trick - the opposition denies the election results, violent protests, accusing the president of being
cruel, declaring him illegitimate, creating parallel government
structures and finally military units that are provided with weapon from abroad. If such things are done in bitter divide country you cause a
civil war deliberately. And it is awful.
There many places in the world where regimes are not perfect. Take for instance Europe. The Europeans live quite well, they are become lazy, sluggish. The European country leader should be a real fucking ass personification so as to make people rise and go onto the streets for months despite arrests and repressions.
In France, people bust their guts shouting how President Macron is wrong in his politics. But what can we see? We see that in a so called democratic country, people's outrage worths nothing. They can shout till Second Advent, but they cannot influence the country destiny. More of
that - Macron is just using a wise Israeli tactic - let them shout;
after that, when they understand that it is useless let them commit violent acts; after that declare them terrorists and put in prison. That is the democracy in France now.
But anyway, if the yellow vests leader declares Macron illegitimate how
on Earth it is possible for other countries to accept that leader as a president? We will increase havoc, that's all.
A couple of (presumably) Russians used to post in this echo -
although I haven't seen them lately. Perhaps it's their
government controlling their feed(s) out of the country
You better tell me when will the US wage a civil war in Venezuela, like it did in Syria?
Not in Fidonet it isn't. Fidonet (and the associated BBSs) is an alternative to the WWW.
you are just making one
person's opinion of the available information available.
You are NOT making it easier with a website
fees, display your fascist manifesto - and make out that it is the collective opinion of Fidonet.
Can you list the people not in zone 1 (other than yourself) who are in favour of this change?
I still think that if *you* want to be in zone 1 then you should get *yourself* listed there.
As has been explained multiple times, it's not about the number, it's
about the redundancy of multiple zones. It could just as easily be 2, 3,
4 or 728.
Surely it would have to be done away with - if it is the same number for
everyone it would be redundant.
Not at all. Zone numbers still distinguish the various FTN nets.
In 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left?
What would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody
out?
theNot in Fidonet it isn't. Fidonet (and the associated BBSs) is an
alternative to the WWW.
Your attitude is puzzling. On the one hand, you insist that Fidonet and
WWW have nothing to do with each other. Yet, you still drum up a wholeream
of arguments in opposition to anyone attempting to maintain any sort ofweb
presence.
If FN and the WWW have nothing to do with each other, the logical attitude should be who cares?
differenceyou are just making one person's opinion of the available information available.
So what? Since FN and the WWW are worlds apart, it should make no
to you at all if someone wants to put up a website full of his "opinions". Worst case is it would have no effect on Fidonet at all.
You are NOT making it easier with a website
But that's just one person's opinion, right?
In my case, having an up-to-date website would have made joiningsignificantly
easier. Having all that information available on Fidonet BBSes is of nohelp
at all to someone who doesn't know how to find those BBSes.
other,fees, display your fascist manifesto - and make out that it is the
collective opinion of Fidonet.
But since Fidonet and the WWW have nothing whatsoever to do with each
you shouldn't care at all. Yet you obviously feel strongly enough about itto
gratuitously throw words like "fascist" at the mere suggestion.
Can you list the people not in zone 1 (other than yourself) who are in
favour of this change?
It was *your* claim, so the onus of proof rests with you.
As has been explained multiple times, it's not about the number, it's2, 3, 4 or 728.
about the redundancy of multiple zones. It could just as easily be
You can go on harping about this until hell freezes over, but it isn't going to happen on my watch nor on Nick Andre's. I would assume neither
on Scott Little's but I haven't asked him.
It's obvious you have no clue what you're going to break when going single-zone.
This has got nothing to do with petty-politics, or conservatism, or just sitting on one's ass but everything with experience.
And if you don't know what experience is, it is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.
Come on vacation here for a week or so and I'll show you how and why Fidonet functions plus how and why it is being kept duct-taped together.
Because I don't want to be bunched in with the arrogant USAians with
their "one size fits all", it might be contagious!
Because I don't want to be bunched in with the arrogant USAians with
their "one size fits all", it might be contagious!
Don't group all of us into an debate with a handful of people...
It must not be contagious, because I haven't contracted it... :)
Don't group all of us into an debate with a handful of people...
Then kindly ignore the discussion thanks. If you're not one of the arrogant holding that opinion then I am most certainly not referring to you.
You can go on harping about this until hell freezes over, but it isn't going to happen on my watch nor on Nick Andre's. I would assume neither
Not at all. Zone numbers still distinguish the various FTN nets.
Which are of no consequence to Fidonet.
Actually I have no objection to anyone putting up a web page.
Why are you even asking in here about publishing such a page, why are
you not just doing it?
Because the way you and your ilk speak it sounds as though you think *your* web page and the opinions expressed there-on are in some way Fidonet sanctioned, or the opinion of the collective.
How are you going to cope with the suggested resurrection of zone 6?
Then again - it could be that I need to ease up on the rum at this time
of day.
You'd better take out indemnity insurance then, I will be suing your
club for some perceived slight against me soon (as soon as I can
think of the infraction).
Then again - it could be that I need to ease up on the rum at this time
of day.
Which forces the all important question ... was it good rum ?
areDon't group all of us into an debate with a handful of people...
Then kindly ignore the discussion thanks. If you're not one of the
arrogant holding that opinion then I am most certainly not referring to
you.
I find this 'discussion' to be entertaining. I just get upset when people
trying to get past the zone wars of the past, but then generalize them by groups or zones.
Not at all. Zone numbers still distinguish the various FTN nets.
Which are of no consequence to Fidonet.
If you say so.
You'd better take out indemnity insurance then, I will be suing your
club for some perceived slight against me soon (as soon as I can
think of the infraction).
Have fun. ;)
German laws and courts are different from what you are used to, I guess.
Gang warily
Thinking about sending money squeezing people over here? ;-)
That doesn't seem to bother the litigious USAmericans...
Gang warily
Thinking about sending money squeezing people over here? ;-)
Money? You have some impression that I have money?
trivia: do you know how the NCAA played a part in the development of
fidonet? ;)
No, I'm not sure what the NCAA is either. Can you explain?
Gang warily
Thinking about sending money squeezing people over here? ;-)
Money? You have some impression that I have money?
No, I was of the impression that this might be what gangs might be up to.
David Drummond wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
The zone wars are back on! (Were they ever really ended?)
.. What do you think management's real interests are?
Fidonet has no *management*, we are all lord and masters of our own systems (or was that just a tear line?).
.. What do you think management's real interests are?
Fidonet has no *management*, we are all lord and masters of our own
systems (or was that just a tag line?).
That was a tag line. Have you watched the HBO show "Westworld"?
On 03-24-19 08:28, David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Not in Fidonet it isn't. Fidonet (and the associated BBSs) is an alternative to the WWW. All of the "how to join" stuff should already
be available at those BBSs.
Should we also be taking out advertising in bus shelters, on highway billboards? How do people even hear about Fidonet in the first place to want to become a node?
Fidonet has no collective social opinion. The only thing we vaguely
agree with is connection methods/protocols (and even then some of us cannot connect with others of us - my node does not support POTS, your node does not support ISDN etc.).
On 03-24-19 08:34, David Drummond wrote to nathanael culver <=-
Can you list the people not in zone 1 (other than yourself) who are in favour of this change?
thereNot in Fidonet it isn't. Fidonet (and the associated BBSs) is an
alternative to the WWW. All of the "how to join" stuff should already
be available at those BBSs.
That could lead to a Catch-22. One at least needs to know BBSs are out
and what it's about to get that far.
elseFidonet has no collective social opinion. The only thing we vaguely
agree with is connection methods/protocols (and even then some of us
cannot connect with others of us - my node does not support POTS, your
node does not support ISDN etc.).
That is true. I can't talk to a POTS (or ISDN) only node, or anything
that doesn't support binkp. :)
important,Can you list the people not in zone 1 (other than yourself) who are in
favour of this change?
IF (big if) it happened, I would not be opposed to being in Z1, but in my opinion, I don't feel the need to move to a single zone. It's not
and what we have is working. I don't think it's worth the effort andpotential
other issues to change. Someone pointed out there may be potential hidden issues as well.
In other words, if it ain't broke... ;)
On 03-25-19 16:47, David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I may be a little sluggish to day but can you please tell me why
someone would want to know how to set up a Fidonet BBS if they didn't
know that BBSs were out there?
That is true. I can't talk to a POTS (or ISDN) only node, or anything
else
that doesn't support binkp. :)
Are you therefore Policy compliant?
On 03-25-19 16:48, David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
In other words, if it ain't broke... ;)
Yeah, that.
No, I'm not sure what the NCAA is either. Can you explain?
NCAA := National Collegiate Athletic Association
the answer to the trivia question is here ;) https://youtu.be/_Cm6EFYktRQ?t=476
Can you list the people not in zone 1 (other than yourself) who are in
favour of this change?
IF (big if) it happened, I would not be opposed to being in Z1, but in my opinion, I don't feel the need to move to a single zone. It's not important, and what we have is working. I don't think it's worth the effort and potential other issues to change. Someone pointed out there may be potential hidden issues as well. In other words, if it ain't broke... ;)
Those, who have wet dreams about a single zone Fidonet, should be
aware, that there are still overlapping Netnumbers.
Those, who have wet dreams about a single zone Fidonet, should be
aware, that there are still overlapping Netnumbers.
oh?? have we somehow gained one or more back?
it was reported several years ago that there were no more...
The word "gang" in that quote is a verb, not a noun. The quote is "Googlable".
The word "gang" in that quote is a verb, not a noun. The quote is
"Googlable".
Oh well, who would have thought that this "gang" is more or less a
German word in the case... ;-)
As with "modern" English, I'm sure that the languages of yesterday
were an amalgamation of other tongues too.
Sure they are. But imho English has inherited especially many words,
phrases and grammar from other languages due to the eventful English
history.
People of the United Kingdom - mongrels in genes, language and culture.
As with "modern" English, I'm sure that the languages of yesterday
were an amalgamation of other tongues too.
Sure they are. But imho English has inherited especially many words,
phrases and grammar from other languages due to the eventful English
history.
People of the United Kingdom - mongrels in genes, language and culture.
Except for the Scots, and the Welsh, and the Irish ...
As with "modern" English, I'm sure that the languages of yesterday
were an amalgamation of other tongues too.
words,Sure they are. But imho English has inherited especially many
Englishphrases and grammar from other languages due to the eventful
history.
culture.People of the United Kingdom - mongrels in genes, language and
Except for the Scots, and the Welsh, and the Irish ...
I think that some of the invaders made it into those places too.
Come on vacation here for a week or so and I'll show you how and whyFidonet
functions plus how and why it is being kept duct-taped together.
In 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left?
What would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody
out?
Would he not have built it on Mexico's southern border to keep those terrorists from further south out of USA/Mexico?
A couple of (presumably) Russians used to post in this echo -
although I haven't seen them lately. Perhaps it's their
government controlling their feed(s) out of the country
You better tell me when will the US wage a civil war in Venezuela,
like it did in Syria?
That might take a while. Trump ordered the Marines to defend the
border between the US and Mexico. The Marines refused his order,
telling him they had other more important things to do.
In 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left? What
would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody out?
Trump also should think of millions refuges in case of civil war in Venezuela. Syria from Europe is also quite far - but millions of refuges managed to get Europe legally or illegally. So, Trump probably decided make the Wall first.
culture.People of the United Kingdom - mongrels in genes, language and
Except for the Scots, and the Welsh, and the Irish ...
I think that some of the invaders made it into those places too.
Vikings. No doubt. Vikings. On orders from Odin.
In 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left?
What would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody
out?
Would he not have built it on Mexico's southern border to keep those
terrorists from further south out of USA/Mexico?
What terrorists?
are until such a time when a revived Z6 really takes off. And if it
doesn't we trashcan that revived Z6 and nothing's lost.
I'm confused. Just two days ago you were telling me about how badly Fidonet would break if zones were disbanded. Now you're talking about reviving and potentially again disbanding a zone as if it were nothing.
Which is it?
culture.People of the United Kingdom - mongrels in genes, language and
Except for the Scots, and the Welsh, and the Irish ...
I think that some of the invaders made it into those places too.
Vikings. No doubt. Vikings. On orders from Odin.
And that bloke with the hammer...
In 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left?
What would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody
out?
Would he not have built it on Mexico's southern border to keep those
terrorists from further south out of USA/Mexico?
What terrorists?
Err - the ones the present wall is intended to keep out?
In 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left?
What would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody
out?
Would he not have built it on Mexico's southern border to keep those
terrorists from further south out of USA/Mexico?
What terrorists?
Err - the ones the present wall is intended to keep out?
What wall?
thatIn 1846, the US invaded Mexico. What if the US had never left?
What would Trump do then, with no wall to build to keep anybody
out?
Would he not have built it on Mexico's southern border to keep those
terrorists from further south out of USA/Mexico?
What terrorists?
Err - the ones the present wall is intended to keep out?
What wall?
Could it be the wall that Trump promised to build? Has he not fulfilled
promise?
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming
they have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
question...
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
Haha! Hello Alexander, thanks for the reply. The Russian
connection is confirmed! :-)
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.fidonews 2019
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
...confirmed via a Usenet gateway, anyway. Do you guys still do
FidoNet echos the "old-fashioned way"?
Here's another quick question: Does the "fido7" in that Usenet
group name refer to the rumored FidoNet Zone 7 from the dim and
dark past mysteries of Fido...?
fido7.fidonews 2019...confirmed via a Usenet gateway, anyway. Do you guys still do
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
FidoNet echos the "old-fashioned way"?
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see ANY posts from
these important Russians.
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
fido7.fidonews 2019
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
...confirmed via a Usenet gateway, anyway. Do you guys still doNo, this is the exception rather than the rule.
FidoNet echos the "old-fashioned way"?
Well, at least two of the ZC's were right here having the
conversation in public. Yes, there could have been some private
messages, but didn't really seem to be needed (yet).
keeping everything the same is. Nobody seems to WANT anything to
change, INCLUDING THE SOFTWARE, and the cumbersome/difficult
procedures for getting information on how to join FidoNet.
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
You are russian hacker? ;)
FidoNet echos the "old-fashioned way"?
No, this is the exception rather than the rule.Wow!
MacBook with GoldEd. You are not Russian, i think!
Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Well, at least two of the ZC's were right here having the
conversation in public. Yes, there could have been some private
messages, but didn't really seem to be needed (yet).
As I wrote to August - Othernets work because they are Othernets,
they are not Fido. Fido is just too tarnished with too many bad
decisions and mistakes. Othernets work and are popular because
they learnt from Fido's mistakes.
Not because they just have one zone-number in the addressing.
keeping everything the same is. Nobody seems to WANT anything to
change, INCLUDING THE SOFTWARE, and the cumbersome/difficult
procedures for getting information on how to join FidoNet.
Its simple, really. Better software for newcomers and make it
dumbed-down and attractive enough so it catches on. Have a
simplistic display of messages with easy ways to reply. Make it a
little bit cool.
Mystic isn't my cup of tea but I'm a huge fan of the "cool"
factor of everyone being able to install it and have a BBS up and
running in minutes. And have something to show off and others
think is cool. I'm on Fsxnet and cannot keep up with the volume
of Mystic-related messages. Everyone loves Mystic.
It helps tremendously when we do not have people running out and registering Fidonet domains and putting up websites in hopes that
their site is the "right place to come to" for information (see
fidonet.ca and fidonet.us as examples). The more websites, the
more confusion, because none are consistant, the SEO is all over
the place, and just a mess. I appreciate the effort with this
fidonet.io site but I think its a bit misguided and personified.
Alexander Kruglikov wrote to Dan Clough <=-
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see ANY posts from
these important Russians.
Probably, in these echoes there is nothing interesting for
discussion by important Russians =)))
Example for me, writing just because I can write - the wrong way
=)
With best regards, Alexander.
FidoNet echos the "old-fashioned way"?
No, this is the exception rather than the rule.
Wow! MacBook with GoldEd. You are not Russian, i think!Even worse. This is not a MacBook, this is Mac Pro. \m/ \m/
Mystic isn't my cup of tea but I'm a huge fan of the "cool" factor of
much. I have only seen ONE new one (fidonet.io) put up recently.
Again it always seems to come back to people being frustrated with
the NON-availability of valid, up-to-date INFORMATION on FidoNet.
I'm not sure how anyone who claims to want to promote/grow FidoNet
could be opposed to such a thing. Keeping dead websites around
that contain nothing but dead links isn't helping anybody. Is it?
What is the logical answer, then? Yes. Put up a website with
useful information that will HELP people instead of frustrate
them. I believe that's all that's going on here.
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
question...
Andrew Ivanov wrote to Dan Clough <=-
It's a little curious to me as to why we don't see *ANY* posts
from these important Russians. I don't think I've seen a single
post in ANY echo that I follow, from a Russian. I'm assuming they
have their own set of echos, but why wouldn't ANY of them
participate in a "Fido-wide" echo like this one? Serious
question...
Yes, we mostly use our Russian-language echoes whose names start
with an RU. or SU. prefix. I'm rather new to Fidonet (joined last
summer), but my impression is that most communication in the
Russian part happens in certain sysops' local echoes. Topic
echoes are far less popular these days, with some exceptions like RU.FIDONET.TODAY which is probably a Russian equivalent of
FIDONEWS.
On 03-18-19 08:18, Kurt Weiske wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I've found a couple of them, but when you go full screen, they have a console-sized font that takes up the same amount of screen as if it
were a window. With DOSBOX/vDOS, I get a full screen 80x25 window.
On 03-18-19 18:55, alexander koryagin wrote to Dan Clough <=-
No, no, Russians are omnipresent! Ask me something! ;-)
On 03-18-19 16:51, Dan Clough wrote to David Drummond <=-
In spite of it's problems and faults, FidoNet carries a certain...
allure. A prestige, as it were, being the first real "Net" I
guess.
On 03-18-19 22:14, Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-
On 18 Mar 19 08:55:00, Dan Clough said the following to Nick Andre:
OK, so I take it you're like the Zone 2 folks who will resist all
change, regardless of merit?
Its real easy to write me off as someone reisting change, when I have
done more to help people here and in "real life" than you can ever understand. I guess I just do not see the merit in me being ZC1 and
have to tell others that you must migrate to my zone, or be left behind for historial/sentimental reasons as you say.
You know what idea I would seriously get behind? BETTER SOFTWARE for newcomers, instead of masturbatory zone-ruling fantasies.
So I could have akas 1:221/360 and 3:221/360 as well as 2:221/360. :)
--
Tommi
--- HotdogEd/2.13.5 (Android; Google Android; rv:1)
Hotdoged/1546513055000 Hotd * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake
Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)
From TERRY ROATI To Tommi Koivula
Hi Tommy.
Sounds like you want to the secret echos of each zone, I's sure you will be bored or they are almost the same. :)
As with "modern" English, I'm sure that the languages of yesterday
were an amalgamation of other tongues too.
On 03-25-19 11:05, Kees van Eeten wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Those, who have wet dreams about a single zone Fidonet, should be
aware, that
there are still overlapping Netnumbers.
As with "modern" English, I'm sure that the languages of yesterday
were an amalgamation of other tongues too.
Sure they are. But imho English has inherited especially many words, phrases and grammar from other languages due to the eventful English history.
On 03-26-19 18:27, Gerrit Kuehn wrote to David Drummond <=-
Sure they are. But imho English has inherited especially many words, phrases and grammar from other languages due to the eventful English history.
| Sysop: | Zazz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 15:06:37 |
| Calls: | 157 |
| Files: | 2,118 |
| Messages: | 146,564 |