pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (06/16/89)
Volume 6, Number 24 12 June 1989
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
Policy4 Passes ........................................... 1
Improve Your Programs with Default Parameters ............ 2
Words from Under the Basement Steps ...................... 5
Miscellaneous Musings .................................... 9
What is the spirit of UseNet? ............................ 14
2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 16
Latest Software Versions ................................. 16
3. NOTICES .................................................. 17
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 17
FidoNews 6-24 Page 1 12 Jun 1989
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
From NodeList.160:
I am pleased to announce the passing of POLICY4.06
as the new governing policy document for FidoNet.
The vote was YES=152, NO=75. POLICY4.06 will
be known as POLICY4 and will be in effect immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 2 12 Jun 1989
John Herro
1:363/6
IMPROVE YOUR PROGRAMS WITH DEFAULT PARAMETERS
In my previous article on improving your programs, we learned how
Named Notation (or Named Parameter Association) in Ada can make
your programs easier to read. One reader asked me if Named Nota-
tion can also be used with records. The answer is yes. For ex-
ample, in Ada we can write
type MONTH_TYPE is
(JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC);
type DATE is
record
DAY : INTEGER;
MONTH : MONTH_TYPE;
YEAR : INTEGER;
end record;
USA : DATE;
Since USA is declared to be of type DATE, it has three "fields":
USA.DAY, USA.MONTH, and USA.YEAR. These fields can be referred
to individually, as in USA.DAY := 4; or the entire record can be
referred to at once, as in
USA := (4, JUL, 1776);
Here's where Named Notation comes in. If we prefer to write the
month first, we can write
USA := (MONTH => JUL, DAY => 4, YEAR => 1776);
similar to the way we used Named Notation in subprogram calls.
Also, having the names of the fields right there in the assign-
ment often makes the code easier to read.
Closely associated with Named Notation is the concept of Default
Parameters. They allow your Ada subprograms to be both FLEXIBLE
and EASY TO USE, where in other languages you would have to
choose between these two features.
For example, suppose you want to write a procedure DISPLAY to
display an integer on some special device, perhaps an array of
lights. To make DISPLAY as easy to use as possible, you might
give it only one argument: the integer being displayed. However,
to make it flexible, you might want to give it two additional ar-
guments: the base and the width, so that the user can specify any
reasonable base, and allow extra space for the integer if he
wants to. The problem is that in most languages the procedure
would no longer be easy to use, because the base and the width
would have to be specified in every call. For example, in For-
tran we could write
FidoNews 6-24 Page 3 12 Jun 1989
SUBROUTINE DISPLA (ITEM)
which would be easy to use but not flexible, or we could write
SUBROUTINE DISPLA (ITEM, IBASE, IWIDTH)
which would be flexible but clumsy to use, because the base and
width would have to be specified in every call. However, in Ada
we can write
procedure DISPLAY(ITEM : in INTEGER; BASE : in INTEGER := 10;
WIDTH : in INTEGER := 6);
If the BASE isn't specified in a call to DISPLAY, it's assumed to
be 10, and if the WIDTH isn't specified, it's assumed to be 6.
(We chose 6 because the longest integer in 16-bit two's comple-
ment representation is -32768.) If the BASE and WIDTH are speci-
fied, they overwrite the default values in the procedure specifi-
cation. ITEM must be specified in every call, because there's no
default value for that parameter.
We now have a procedure that's both flexible and easy to use.
With most calls to DISPLAY, we need specify only the integer be-
ing displayed. For example, if N is an integer, we could write
DISPLAY(N);
If we need to display N in hex, we could write
DISPLAY(N, BASE => 16);
If we want to display N with extra space, we could write, for ex-
ample,
DISPLAY(N, WIDTH => 9);
Finally, if we want to specify both the BASE and the WIDTH, we
can do so, and we don't need to remember which of these two argu-
ments came first in the procedure specification:
DISPLAY(N, WIDTH => 9, BASE => 16);
In these examples, we could have written ITEM => N in place of N
if we wanted to use Named Notation even with the first argument.
Ada comes with a procedure PUT that's very similar to the DISPLAY
procedure we've been discussing, writing integers to the screen
rather than to an array of lights. However, before we can make
use of that procedure, we have to learn a little about Generics,
and that's a topic for a future article.
Default values can be assigned in records as well as subprogram
specifications. For example, if we write
FidoNews 6-24 Page 4 12 Jun 1989
type DATE is
record
DAY : INTEGER;
MONTH : MONTH_TYPE;
YEAR : INTEGER := 1776;
end record;
then every object that we create of type DATE will automatically
have its YEAR field initialized to 1776 when it's created. How-
ever, the similarity to default parameters in subprogram specifi-
cations is limited. Although subprogram calls can omit arguments
that have default values, we must specify all three fields when
we assign objects of type DATE. For example, if we declare USA
to be of type DATE, we may NOT write USA := (4, JUL); because all
three fields must be specified. We'll show the real usefulness
of default values in record types when we discuss Ada STRINGs and
type TEXT in a later article.
As you can see from this and earlier articles, Ada has many ad-
vantages over earlier programming languages, that make your pro-
grams easier to read and easier to maintain. Ada is no longer
for large programs only; it's an ideal language for general pur-
pose programming on a PC. (There are now several inexpensive Ada
compilers available for the PC.) You can find my shareware pro-
gram "ADA-TUTR, the Interactive Ada Tutor" as ADA-TUTR.ARC (or
.ZIP, etc.) on many boards, but 1:363/6 (407-773-2831) always has
the latest version. ADA-TUTR doesn't require an Ada compiler,
but a list of Ada compilers available for the PC is included in
the documentation. If you have an Ada compiler, ADA-TUTR can au-
tomatically check your "homework."
Since my last article on Ada, ADA-TUTR has been updated to ver-
sion 1.21. This version automatically remembers your place be-
tween learning sessions, without your having to write anything
down. It lets you choose colors while still remaining compatible
with monochrome machines. At any time, it can tell you how far
you are through the course, and let you go back to the last ques-
tion or to the last "homework" assignment. The documentation on
how to install the program on mainframes and workstations has
been expanded.
I welcome your comments and suggestions, and wish you success
with Ada!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 5 12 Jun 1989
Bob Rudolph, 261/628
President, IFNA
A good number of folks have taken me to task recently, both
publicly and privately for hiding here under the steps in my
basement, where my PC's live, and not "communicating" with the
general public.
There may be some justification for the castigation I have
received. In any event, it is long past time that I said a few
words about IFNA, and the relationship of IFNA to FidoNet -
and, incidentally, why IFNA should not be buried prematurely.
By way of a little background, IFNA was started (perhaps
formed is a little imprecise) to assist in the management of
FidoNet and the nodelist, and to make it possible to get some
of the volunteer expenses reduced or funded. That particular
aspiration has not changed, although everything else (not only
in IFNA but in FidoNet at large) has changed.
Nobody ever anticipated that FidoNet would grow so fast.
Nobody ever anticipated the coming of EchoMail and what
effects it would have on what appears to be our (OUR is used
rather loosely to reflect everything associated with any
FidoNet-compliant network) world and mission.
Nobody anticipated the paranoia and acrimony that would
result from the attempt to found IFNA.
Nobody (myself included) anticipated the great personal
time and sacrifice that an organization such as IFNA would
demand of its people.
Nobody had the vaguest notion how thankless and demanding
the tasks to be done would grow to be.
And NOBODY anticipated that the great network of FidoNet
would so soon become populated by non-technical folks.
However, IFNA still manages to do a few things, and to do
at least some of them somewhat well.
IFNA maintains a telephone and U.S. Mail address for the
sole purpose of answering questions about FidoNet technology
and its uses, for folks that have no way otherwise to find out
about it. The DAK catalog supplied us with literally thousands
of phone calls, many of which I personally answered (to the tune
of more than $1000 in long distance charges from my personal
pocket, not reimbursed).
IFNA sponsors the FTSC. Please note sponsors - IFNA does not
"run" the FTSC - it isn't necessary that IFNA run it, and it
seems to work better when not interfered with.
IFNA helps allay some of the international costs of the
FidoNews 6-24 Page 6 12 Jun 1989
FidoNet International Coordinator.
IFNA represents FidoNet in the Electronic Mail Association
which is an organization of professionals involved with the
various types of electronic mail mechanisms.
IFNA supplies seed money for FidoCon, if asked. IFNA also
through Membership Services attempts to find areas of need and
bring either resources to bear, or to direct to appropriate
places the people or organizations in need.
IFNA DOES NOT RUN FIDONET. IFNA never DID run FidoNet -
and couldn't if it wanted to, which it does not. IFNA does not
meddle in FidoNet day-to-day operations, in spite of what some
folks would have you to believe. FidoNet does pretty well on
its own without our interference.
I can hear the questions forming now - "Why do we need an
organization like IFNA anyhow?" If you'll bear with me a few
more minutes, I'll try to tell you from my perspective why we
need IFNA.
As an information source IFNA is needed - a central place
to go to get information for those not already affiliated with
some network or another. If you heard about FidoNet, who would
you call to find out about it? If you read about it in the
paper or in a catalog, you'd probably see our P.O. Box. We
have the information, and would supply it.
The proliferation of networks, and the flame wars that have
raged have pointed out the need for some "United Nations" sort
of body to hear disputes and to work out agreements between the
OtherNets and FidoNet. The players in both places at the upper
levels are very close the the frictions - an arbitration group
could help there.
FidoNet is an organization that functions but has no legal
existence. IFNA supplies that legitimacy, by supplying the
information clearinghouse and a corporate existence with some
responsibility. IFNA, through the work of some concerned members
of various committees has been active with telephone company
concerns, and with several social projects. Maybe they're not
important to the Average Sysop, but they're important to someone
somewhere, or these hard working folks would not be taking their
time and resources to involve themselves in these projects. IFNA
supplies a FidoNet-wide view, as opposed to a local-net view -
something that is occasionally badly needed.
IFNA, because it is classified as a charitable organization
COULD (capitalized because MakeNews doesn't like italics) be
used as a source for operational funds for various areas in both
FidoNet and the OtherNets - much as it currently funds part of
the IC's phone costs. It puts IFNA in a position to solicit
funds for operations from commercial organizations, provided
that some common good benefit accrues.
FidoNews 6-24 Page 7 12 Jun 1989
Difficult as it may be to believe, the continued operation
of FidoNet is all the common good that is needed - FidoNet,
through its sysops is supplying to the modem-owning public all
kinds of useful information, programs, files, and conversation.
FidoNet-technology users, regardless of net affiliation perform
a public service by permitting access to their systems.
The spread of FidoNet Technology and assistance where
needed or asked in the implementation, organization, operation,
and education as regards the uses of this technology is the
reason for IFNA to continue to exist. IFNA supplies the
"figurehead" (I don't like that term, but no better term comes
to mind at present) upon which questions may be focussed, and
through which funding may be attained, resources brought to
bear, and agreements brought to fruition.
These things may be done without interference in day-to-day
operations of the various networks.
IFNA is also charged to protect the trademarks of Tom
Jennings and Fido Software. The license to do so is part of our
responsibility. IFNA could be the arbiter that resulted in more
peace and quiet between or among the various networks. IFNA
should be the source of funding and hardware for the FTSC to let
realistic software test suites be developed to assure that the
standards promulgated by that organization were adhered to in a
meaningful and reasonable manner.
IFNA was formed for a lot of reasons. Along the way, most
of them got to be obsolete or less interesting. Along the way,
lots of us buried friends. After several years of struggle, IFNA
has the coveted 501(c)(3) from the IRS which permits us to seek
funding of industry. This funding could help FidoNet and all the
OtherNets - if we were to go after it - if we were convinced
that it was wanted.
I don't know why so many FidoNet folks feel that IFNA wants
to RUN FidoNet on a day-to-day basis - I sure don't want to do
that, and as IFNA President I can state that that is not the
aim, wish, or intent of the organization.
IFNA has the potential to do a lot of good - to remove
some of the costs of doing business that currently plague
FidoNet, to act as a dispute resolver, to assist in the formation
of policy, to assist in the definition and testing of standards,
and to operate for the benefit of the public at large whilst
doing these things.
So someone please tell me why these are "bad" ideals? Why
is there rampant paranoia in FidoNet and other places? What have
I done to any of you to deserve the vilification that is being
heaped on the corporate head of IFNA?
IFNA is not perfect. I can assure you that I am likewise
not perfect. IFNA is, however, the one small voice that has the
potential to "bring the word" about FidoNet technology to the
FidoNews 6-24 Page 8 12 Jun 1989
balance of the known universe in a coordinated and global manner
as is needed, and it is the one organization in the realm of
FidoNet that has the corporate recognition and the tax exempt
status that will be so valuable as a source of funding, provided
the organization is not summarily executed.
Lots of good people have worked within IFNA, burned out and
dropped out. Lots more have stood on the outside throwing rocks.
Personalities have played a major role where they should have
had no role whatever to play. We are FINALLY rising above some
of that. We aren't perfect, but we do try - and we still have
the potential to be the seed of democracy for FidoNet.
I am not asking you to LET us do these things. I am asking
you to put aside paranoia and bad feelings and HELP us to do
these things. IFNA isn't Bob Rudolph and the rest of the guys
on the BoD, regardless how capable they may be on selected days.
IFNA should be all of the world of FidoNet technology, and it
isn't - and one of the reasons it isn't is that in the process
of listening to everyone, we ended up not able to do much of
anything without getting shot at - and getting shot at is not
much fun. A plea for a little reserve here - help educate us;
don't tell us we're wrong all the time, for we already KNOW it -
instead, help us to do it right.
But I'm warning you - it takes commitment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 9 12 Jun 1989
Miscellaneous Musings
about FidoNet policy and other things
by Daniel Tobias
1:380/7
Much discussion about the proposed (and maybe enacted by the
time this sees print) POLICY4, and other ramifications of
FidoNet policy, has been going on in recent FidoNews issues.
I put in my own two cents in FidoNews 623, regarding the
European rejection of POLICY3 and POLICY4 in favor of their
own policy which they claim supersedes the overall net
policy.
(By the way, that article saw print just hours after I wrote
and submitted it. Has FidoNews eliminated the former three
week lead time, or did the editor just consider my article
to be sufficiently timely to suspend it? Whatever, I like
this timely publication, and hope it continues. It's nice
to carry on discussion about FidoNet issues before they
become stale.)
Here are a few more comments regarding directions in which
FidoNet policy might evolve.
First of all, let me state up front that I'm not a *C, *EC,
IFNA BoD member, or any other elected or appointed position
within FidoNet or any related organization. For that
matter, I have never had a major dispute or quarrel with any
*C, *EC, IFNA BoD member, or other officer of FidoNet-
related organizations. I am not part of any faction,
clique, in-group, good-old-boy-network, or power-seeking
cabal. Rather, I'm just a sysop who has been fascinated by
the concept of FidoNet ever since I first discovered it in
September, 1985. All ideas expressed here are my own,
presented in the spirit of seeking common-sense solutions to
the various problems of net policy. I have no axes to
grind or vested interests to promote or tear down; I'm
willing to change any opinions upon being presented with
sufficient evidence to back opposing viewpoints. All I ask
in return is that whatever ideas I present be evaluated and
allowed to stand or fall on their own merits rather than
becoming the subject of personal attacks, innuendos, or
accusations of power-monging.
As I stated last time, I'm opposed to the European nodes
claiming to be exempt from POLICYx. This, however, does not
mean I'm a centralist opposed to the devolution of power to
more grass-roots levels. Actually, I'm very much in favor
of making FidoNet a grass-roots network with the ultimate
power residing at the lowest level. This, however, should
be within a framework of overall POLICY applying to all and
setting the very basic ground rules by which the network is
to operate. Much latitude should be given to local
subsections of FidoNet to adjust to their own particular
conditions, so long as the basic principles of FidoNet are
FidoNews 6-24 Page 10 12 Jun 1989
not subverted. Exactly what these basic principles are is
something the whole net must somehow come to agreement on;
this should preferably be a fairly minimal set of standards
so that individual freedom is not stifled.
Much in the European policy (which I haven't actually seen,
so I just know what was written about it in FidoNews) would
be reasonable to emulate in a new netwide policy. For
instance, a switch to a bottom-up system of selecting
coordinators would be a practical way of introducing a
measure of democracy. NCs ought to be elected by their
constituent sysops, RCs by their NCs, ZCs by their RCs, and
the IC by the ZCs. The latter two are done in POLICY4, but
I think it would be reasonable to extend democracy all the
way down. (One reservation about this: it could result in
politicising coordinator positions which are really intended
to be technical; however, this isn't really a significant
objection given that these positions have already been
irreversably politicized, and are granted legislative,
executive, and judicial powers by POLICY and precedent;
hence, making them subject to democratic election only
provides the grunt sysops with some power over net politics
that they don't presently have.)
Other proposals for democracy are more problematic; any
attempt to have the whole net vote on anyone or anything
is a major logistical problem with the 5000+ nodes, added to
the fact that most sysops don't seem to give a damn about
net politics (and why should they? If only the squabbles
can stop, maybe all of us can turn our energies to
productive labor enhancing the technical aspects of the net,
and "politics" will be a forgotten vestige of the past), and
hence all such votes (e.g., the vote to ratify the IFNA
bylaws a few years ago) will end up with an underwhelming
turnout, and any number of militant factions claiming to
speak for the silent majority. Hence, we may have to stick
with the POLICY4 means of ratification of policy changes by
*C voting. Perhaps, though, the coordinators should be
required to disclose their votes to their constituents
rather than using a secret ballot, so any sysops who care to
be involved in net policy can judge whether they are fairly
represented.
One democratic reform that should be adopted is a means for
sysops to place POLICY amendments on the table for
consideration, besides submission by a majority of RCs as
provided in section 8.1 of the POLICY4 proposal. Just as
U.S. Constitutional amendments may be proposed either by
Congress or by a convention called by state legislatures,
there should be two alternate methods of proposing POLICY
amendments, to prevent any one group from squelching all
consideration of change. A good second method would be by
petition from at least n sysops, where n is set sufficiently
large to discourage frivolous proposals, but small enough to
allow for proposals emerging from a grass-roots level.
Reasonable values might range from 50 to 250, or
FidoNews 6-24 Page 11 12 Jun 1989
alternatively, a percentage of the nodelist size between 1%
and 5%.
Other matters: At least one sysop is up in arms about all
references to geography in the POLICY document. He's got a
point; some coordinators have been fairly tyrannical in
their rigorous enforcement of net and region boundaries, in
cases where there are rational reasons to disregard the
arbitrary boundaries and place nodes where it makes the most
sense to the sysops and NCs involved. On the other hand, I
can see the rationale behind the strict maintenance of
geographical boundaries; it is intended to prevent nets
being created and organized for political purposes, such as
to include the friends and exclude the enemies of the local
coordinator. Much of this was alleged to be taking place in
Australia at the time of the infamous Communet affair. This
situation can be very confusing to newcomers who are
presented not with a simple hierarchical nodelist pointing
them to their local coordinator, but a bizarre tangle of net
interconnections based more on personal rivalries than
technical sense. Also, should any sort of bottom-up
democracy be instituted as I advocate above, an incentive
might arise for coordinators to pack their nodelist with
supporters who can be counted on to maintain the
coordinator's power, and exclude opponents, through
judicious ignoring of geographic boundaries.
Trying to balance these concerns is a feat of tightrope-
walking, but perhaps the best way is to preserve most
geographical language of POLICY4, but soften the strictness
a little. How about allowing a NC to admit a node even if
it's out of its geographical region, without requiring
explicit approval of any other coordinators. Instead,
others may challenge such non-geographical admission, but
the burden of proof would be on the challenger to show that
such a state of affairs lacks technical necessity and would
be harmful in some way to FidoNet. Blatant political
tactics could be successfully challenged, but generally,
exceptions to geography which have some justifiable
technical reason should be allowed to stand unless direct
harm can be proven. Some time limit should be placed on
challenges so that an excepted node is not constantly
fearful of having its node number altered at the whim of
future coordinators. Later challenges would have the even
more difficult burden of proving new harm as a result of the
exception that didn't exist (or didn't come to light) at the
time it was first granted.
The converse situation, a NC refusing to admit a node in its
geographical area, should be much more strictly regulated;
the only justifiable reasons should be when the node engages
in bulk commercial traffic (and hence should be an
independent in its region) or when the node violates policy
in some manner making it ineligible for admission to the
nodelist. Discrimination by political viewpoint, race,
creed, nationality, or any other such criteria unrelated to
FidoNews 6-24 Page 12 12 Jun 1989
technical necessity or POLICY violation, should be
prohibited; all qualifying nodes have the right to be
admitted to their geographically-appropriate network should
they desire to do so. Hence, the geographic boundaries
would serve more as an entitlement of all systems in that
area to be part of the given net, region, or zone, rather
than an absolute requirement that they do so even if a
different location would be advantageous for some reason.
At any rate, in order to be constructive rather than
destructive, I'm seriously thinking of putting together a
proposed POLICY5 (assuming POLICY4 passes; POLICY4 if not)
incorporating these ideas. If any of you have any
constructive suggestions (e.g., things in POLICY3 or 4 that
you'd like to see changed, and what you want to change them
to and why), I'll take them into account in writing my
proposal. When it's done, I'll circulate it for the rest of
the net to read/ignore/adopt/reject/consider/amend/defeat/
flame/line-their-birdcage-with/etc. At least (I hope), I
won't be accused of promoting some power structure or other,
given that I'm not part of any such thing, and maybe
whatever ideas are incorporated into the proposal will be
given a fair hearing and make a start toward bringing to an
end the disgusting factionalism that's paralyzed the net for
the last few years.
Send all comments by netmail to 1:380/2. Try to give
rational reasons for your ideas, rather than raving about
evil conspiracies to undermine FidoNet.
- While I'm At It Department -
A few more comments about FidoNews 623's articles:
I think Jamie MacDonald doth protest too much when he
laments all the "fake" users. Sure, there are some abusive
users; every sysop encounters them. Other users are
innocent but stupid; there's not much one can do about them;
while I'd prefer smarter users, it's not really fair to
punish people for an attribute they are born with. Just
grin and bear these people, and hope others of a higher
caliber choose to grace your system with their presence as
well.
But you reserve the epithet "the worst class of users" to
those who aren't really doing anything wrong: those who call
from elsewhere than their own home for any of a number of
reasons, such as their modem being broken, etc. I've been
in that category myself; for a while I didn't have a
functional computer myself, and had to use computers at work
to telecommunicate. What's wrong with that, other than a
little difficulty for the sysop to verify this status? The
user isn't trying to make things difficult for you; show
some tolerance and understanding.
FidoNews 6-24 Page 13 12 Jun 1989
Perhaps you prefer to impose strict control on your users,
but I'm much more tolerant. I'm willing to put up with
occasional minor abuse in order to avoid the complications
imposed on both sysop and user by complex validation
procedures. In three years of running BBSs with no pre-
registration requirement (my previous board was wide open
without even a mandatory questionnaire; my current board
requires new users to fill out a questionnaire and read a
policy document, but I don't voice-verify) I haven't had any
major system abuse; I've had a few twits log in under
multiple names to get more online time, but they generally
stopped when I informed them I knew what they were doing.
The vast majority of my users have been responsible, and
they appreciate my tolerance of the wide variety of
circumstances they are under (e.g., when line noise hampers
their access at 1200 baud, they can step down to 300; I
don't discriminate against 300 baud callers like some
elitist sysops). I'm not quick to judge a user as a "loser"
because of his situation which he perhaps is unable to help.
About the FidoNet archives: That's very interesting
reading, though I've seen most of these documents already in
my copious perusal of FidoNet materials throughout my long
involvement with the net. Regarding Richard Wilkes'
document, it is simultaneously overcritical and prophetic.
He attempted to "rain on Fido's parade" by shooting down the
idea of FidoNet as impractical given the level of PC
technology of the day. He had fairly elitist expectations
due to his involvement in UUCP/UseNet, and didn't see much
value in a BBS network of much lower functionality.
Fortunately, others were willing to work with what they had,
and accomplished a lot with a network at not quite as lofty
a level as Wilkes would have liked.
However, Wilkes' minimum standards for an ideal FidoNet
system (e.g., a large hard drive, multiple lines, and a fast
processor) have ultimately become a necessity for echomail
hubs, so it seems the net has finally caught up to him.
(I'd like to know what he means by XMODEM not being a "real"
file transfer protocol, though.)
- That's all, folks! -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 14 12 Jun 1989
What is the spirit of UseNet?
From a posting in Usenet submitted by Randy Bush, 1:105/6
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Subject: What is the Spirit of Usenet?
Date: 14 Mar 89 19:26:48 GMT
(This discussion belongs in news.misc)
Many people recently have talked about something they call the
"Spirit of Usenet." What does this mean, other than, "The way I
think USENET should be run"?
Some talk as though there are some stone tablets in a golden ark
that describe the spirit of usenet. Some have picked a
philosophical principle which they feel should guide not just
their own actions, but the actions of everybody else on the
network.
But the Spirit of Usenet is not what Denninger says it is, not
what Crawford says it is and not even what I say it is. The
spirit of usenet is, quite simply, what usenet readers and site
admins wish to read, transmit and pay for.
How do you learn just what that is? You watch, you talk, you
survey. If there's no precedent, you *act* and see whether
people like it or not. This is how the "spirit of usenet"
develops.
I have observed this net for a very long time. I was on my first
arpanet digest mailing list before there even was a usenet. I
started reading news with A news before there even was a B news.
That experience tells me certain things, and they are my opinions
of the spirit of usenet.
First of all, the net is not a commune. People own and control
property, both physical and intellectual. This comes from
outside the net, not within it. Because the net is subject to
outside rules it is also not an anarchy, not strictly speaking.
It is a propertarian minarchy, to get technical.
People often write that commercial use of usenet is against the
spirit of usenet. They haven't watched the net. The real rule,
I think, is that commercial *abuse* of usenet is what people
don't want.
In general what this means is that commercial traffic is
accepted, even encouraged, when it's a win/win situation -- where
netters and vendors benefit. There is nothing wrong with mutual
profit, and I'm surprised that I have to say this in the western
world.
The proof of this is everwhere. Comp.newprod is both advertising
and news -- win/win. Software support from vendors like MKS,
SCO, Microport, Telebit, Telenet, Microsoft, Sun, Apple, Atari,
Commodore and many others benefits both those companies and the
FidoNews 6-24 Page 15 12 Jun 1989
readers -- win/win. The OtherRealms fanzine gets submissions and
promotion and usenauts read it for free. A book of net material
gets announced that netters clearly enjoy and demand -- they
spent their money on it, not just their words.
The examples are countless. If net readers want it, it's in the
spirit of usenet. To run a stream of ads for something net
people aren't interested it -- that would be abuse. To post a 1
meg demo people aren't interested in, that would be abuse.
Is shareware abuse? Not if people want it. People can even FTP
shareware from sites on the highly regulated MILNET -- the net
people take as their model of non-commercial operation.
Usenet is built by people who *do*, not by people who argue
endlessly about undoing. In this case, I was going to do
something fairly new. So I asked netters to give me their
opinions. They did, and they were overwhelmingly in favour. I
tried to guage the spirit of usenet not by dictating what I think
it is, but by trying to find out what it is. Those who dictate
what others should do are the ones violating the spirit of usenet
-- that much I do know.
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 16 12 Jun 1989
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.1D TPBoard 5.2*
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02*
D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00
FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02*
PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10*
SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3*
XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99
TCOMMail 2.2*
TMail 1.11*
TPBNetEd 3.2*
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 2.2
* Recently changed
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 17 12 Jun 1989
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
15 Jul 1989
Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last
year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter,
so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one
of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.
2 Aug 1989
Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
24 Aug 1989
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Oct 1989
First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.
11 Nov 1989
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 18 12 Jun 1989
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/1
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/1
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
19 David Drexler 1:147/1 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 19 12 Jun 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
Name: _______________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________
City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________
Country: ____________________________________________________
Phone Numbers:
Day: ________________________________________________________
Evening: ____________________________________________________
Data: _______________________________________________________
Zone:Net/
Node.Point: ___________________________________________________
Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________
BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________
Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________
What Hotel will you be Staying at: ____________________________
Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________
Are you a Sysop? _____________
Are you an IFNA Member? ______
Additional Guests: __________
(not attending conferences)
Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
handicapped, etc.)
FidoNews 6-24 Page 20 12 Jun 1989
______________________________________________________
Comments: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Costs How Many? Cost
--------------------------- -------- -------
Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______
($75.00 after July 15)
Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______
======== =======
Totals ................................ ________ _______
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
This form should be completed and mailed to:
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
PO Box 390770
Mountain View, CA 94039
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
registration.
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
information. For your own security, do not route any message
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
Master Card _______ Visa ________
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
Signature ______________________________________________________
FidoNews 6-24 Page 21 12 Jun 1989
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
signature.
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
register before July 15.
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-24 Page 22 12 Jun 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
_`@/_ \ _
| | \ \\
| (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications.
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
Address _________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
Country _________________________________________________________
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
US Funds to:
International FidoNet Association
PO Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar
>fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406
...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904
USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108