randy@oresoft.UUCP (Randy Bush) (07/11/87)
Unfortunately, Fidonet's 'governing body', IFNA, met with the same kind of warm, friendly, cooperative attitude that such suggestions meet on usenet. Entire echo conferences (=newsgroups) died from the flaming and stupidity. Only about 20% of the >1500 public Fidonet nodes have even joined IFNA. Note that the FidoNews one reads on usenet is the weekly newsletter put together by the constructive folk. The trashers prefer to occupy net.bandwidth with rumors, innuendo, ad hominem attack, and the normal flaming. As Fidonet users tend to be more amateur than those on usenet (no implication meant in either direction), the Fidonet trashers usually don't even make interesting reading. The stalwart just try to keep the mail/news flowing, respond seriously to the more serious and well thought out criticism, and try to prevent technical net.chaos. -- Randy Bush, Compiler Group, Oregon Software, Portland Oregon (503) 245-2202 uucp: ..!tektronix!oresoft!randy Telemail: RBush Fidonet: 1:105/6.6
farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) (07/14/87)
In article <45@oresoft.UUCP> randy@oresoft.UUCP (Randy Bush) writes: >Unfortunately, Fidonet's 'governing body', IFNA, met with the same kind of >warm, friendly, cooperative attitude that such suggestions meet on usenet. >Entire echo conferences (=newsgroups) died from the flaming and stupidity. >Only about 20% of the >1500 public Fidonet nodes have even joined IFNA. My point exactly. Why would anyone expect a different reaction on Usenet? >The stalwart just try to keep the mail/news flowing, respond seriously to >the more serious and well thought out criticism, and try to prevent technical >net.chaos. Probably true here, too. That doesn't change the fact that the FidoNet stalwarts were (and are) a self-appointed group who took the reins of power without much consultation amongst the governed. Certainly, FidoNet is a less chaotic place with someone doing those things, but I do wish that it had been handled a little more democratically, or at the very least, with the _appearance_ of being a democratic action. I don't have a strong opinion on the Usenet Constitution/Government issue. Seems to me that mostly people are doing Good Things, and being extremely open-minded and fair about it. The only opinion on the issue that I do hold is that if major changes are going to be made, realize that there will also be major flaming about them, and be prepared to deal with the flames somehow - either by ignoring them or by addressing them (if you have the stamina). DON'T expect big changes to be swallowed whole - one of the beauties of this net is its diversity and contrariness, and you are in grave danger if you ignore that. -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/17/87)
As quoted from <45@oresoft.UUCP> by randy@oresoft.UUCP: +--------------- | Unfortunately, Fidonet's 'governing body', IFNA, met with the same kind of | warm, friendly, cooperative attitude that such suggestions meet on usenet. | Entire echo conferences (=newsgroups) died from the flaming and stupidity. | Only about 20% of the >1500 public Fidonet nodes have even joined IFNA. | | Note that the FidoNews one reads on usenet is the weekly newsletter put | together by the constructive folk. The trashers prefer to occupy net.bandwidth | with rumors, innuendo, ad hominem attack, and the normal flaming. As Fidonet | users tend to be more amateur than those on usenet (no implication meant in | either direction), the Fidonet trashers usually don't even make interesting | reading. +--------------- At the last few meetings of CASA (the Cleveland/Akron Sysops' Association), I had a discussion with some Fido sysops. The similarities between Fidonet and Usenet were striking. Indeed, Fidonet is going through the same problems as the Usenet. In fact, worse problems, because they don't have any "backbone" sites, in the Usenet sense: no gatech, no seismo (of course, that's about to happen to us as well), no UUNET, nothing of the sort. Excessively low SNR could destroy the Fidonet much more quickly than it would the Usenet: the current Usenet situation is untenable on the Fidonet. I've also become more involved with local Fido systems. And seen this myself. When it comes down to it, anarchy doesn't work when the population is too high. Fidonet is rapidly approaching the line, Usenet passed it long ago but continues on sheer blind inertia. (The loss of seismo may well blow Usenet sky-high. Add the possibility that Gene Spafford may leave the net, and it gets worse. If UUNET fails (still possible) on top of everything else, the loss of coordinated effort may damage the Usenet beyond all hope of recovery.) It's time to open our eyes and look at the world. Part of this may involve the "backbone cabal" meeting with the IFNA "board of directors" (if and when) and comparing notes; maybe together we can come up with a solution for both networks. As it is, it is certain that the current situation is teetering on the brink. -- [Copyright 1987 Brandon S. Allbery, all rights reserved] \ ncoast 216 781 6201 [Redistributable only if redistribution is subsequently permitted.] \ 2400 bd. Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,{well,ihnp4}!hoptoad,cbosgd}!ncoast!allbery <<The opinions herein are those of my cat, therefore they must be correct!>>