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"?
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/
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?
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?
Could it be the wall that Trump promised to build? Has he not fulfilled that
promise?
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.
I find this 'discussion' to be entertaining. I just get upset when people are
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? ;-)
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.
.. 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"?
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.
That could lead to a Catch-22. One at least needs to know BBSs are out there
and what it's about to get that far.
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.).
That is true. I can't talk to a POTS (or ISDN) only node, or anything else
that doesn't support binkp. :)
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.
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... ;-)
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)
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.
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 why Fidonet
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?
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?
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 website right
now. It will only get worse.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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...
Then 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 going
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 them off, 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 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.
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.
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.
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 network.
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? ;)
I am *NOT* trying to see FidoNet "modernized" into some flashy web presence. I am against that in every way possible.
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" side of things. A way for a
potential new Sysop who wants to join Fidonet to be able to easily
access the information needed to join.
Who to contact, and how to contact them. Basic policy documents. A nodelist. An overview
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 to become 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 will CONTINUE 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 "K”rperschaft" 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.
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?
Not 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 the
WWW have nothing to do with each other. Yet, you still drum up a whole ream
of arguments in opposition to anyone attempting to maintain any sort of web
presence.
If FN and the WWW have nothing to do with each other, the logical attitude should be who cares?
you 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 difference
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 joining significantly
easier. Having all that information available on Fidonet BBSes is of no help
at all to someone who doesn't know how to find those BBSes.
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 other,
you shouldn't care at all. Yet you obviously feel strongly enough about it to
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!
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... :)
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.
Which forces the all important question ... was it good rum ?
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?
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.
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.
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 and each 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 -- most with
only a single user. Having multiple zones to manage the dregs that remain is
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 is
where the node I posted from is; I could literally be telneting in from the
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. My zone
number isn't going to tell you.
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?
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?
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.
Ok, who won the "bickering about which zone to collapse Fidonet into" pool? I
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.
Ah, 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 countries
scattered across all seven continents (yes, including Antarctica; trust me -- penguins stink!).
Through all that it has been my experience that people
are just people, and everyone responds pretty much to the same things: show
basic respect to others and they'll do the same. Individual differences are
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?
You could but as a sysop you tend to post from your own system.
But your argument was that geographically assigned zone numbers tell us where
the poster is from. Now you're arguing that it's less about the zone number
and more about your assumptions.
Yes, I do mostly post from my own system. My assertion stands. Neither I nor
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 me culturally.
Othernets are of no consequence to the operations of Fidonet.
FTN-based othernets serve as a reminder that the arugments in favor of multiple
nodes in Fidonet are not technological, but political.
Do 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 "one
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)
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?
If "othernets are such an ideal environment why are their advocates
wasting their time in Fidonet?
FOMO.
You 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 for
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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.
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.
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 situation because 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! ;)
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.
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
What was Zone 7?
What was Zone 7?
I could be mistaken. Was it only 1-6?
As far as I know it was.
There are currently only zones 1-4 in FidoNet.
I realize that. But 5-7 still traditionally "belong" to FidoNet
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.
Anyway, what's the difference between "no longer in use" and "decommissioned"? Seems like the same thing, unless there is some
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 20:23:18 |
| Calls: | 516 |
| Files: | 7,033 |
| Messages: | 288,187 |