informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido0503.nws

1211 lines
56 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
Volume 5, Number 3 18 January 1988
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief Dale Lovell
Editor Emeritus: Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
Contributing Editors: Al Arango
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.
Copyright 1987 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.
The contents of the articles contained here are not our
responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them.
Everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING
received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
Why all the Hoopla? ...................................... 1
Gateways to the Future, Usenet, FidoNet and Public Acce .. 4
ALTERNET - It was a nice try, guys ....................... 13
DOCUMENTATION FOR OZONE.EXE .............................. 15
Patches For Quick Basic 4.0 .............................. 16
2. WANTED ................................................... 19
3. NOTICES .................................................. 20
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 20
Latest Software Versions ................................. 20
FidoNews 5-03 Page 1 18 Jan 1988
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
Why all the Hoopla?
Yup, I am part of the "enemy". I find that all the hoopla
and ado about AlterNet is just what it sounds like, a bunch
of noise. I "joined" AlterNet to keep in touch with some people
I had typed messages to over the last 3 years (I have been around
that long, yes) and the instant it became known I was immediately
shunned by some people with whom I had been communicating simply
because I chose to also talk to others in another network. Never
mind my reasons for joining AlterNet, hang me cause I joined
it. Never mind that my reasons were neither political nor
anti-IFNA, simply tie the noose tighter because I "defected".
This alone is reason enough for any sane person to leave. People
who will not listen to any reason why. This attitude has been
the major factor in my decision to also "take my ball and go
home". I hold no hatred or ill feelings for anyone in FidoNet.
In fact I wish FidoNet luck and continued growth. I forsee a
lot of problems in that everyone wants to make IFNA a toothless
tiger (which it is now, so I guess they have suceeded). I wanted
IFNA to be one thing and one thing only. A governing body
elected by the "line sysops" who would have the authority to
take whatever action necessary to remedy sticky problems in the
net.
AlterNet would have no need for being if everybody would
sit back and remember one simple premise of FidoNet,
co-operation plain and simple. So maybe you do not like the way
something is done, big deal! Is is going to kill you to simply
forget it and continue on? Is is going to do you bodily harm to
say "Ok there has got to be a better way BUT until that way
comes along then this is "as good as it gets" (to quote a
commercial). I think not.
As I stated before my reasons were not political in nature.
While I disagree with the way IFNA is now, I have NEVER said a
word against it since right now this is "as good as it gets". I
am a firm beleiver in the old addage of not bad-mouthing an
organization as long as I am a member of that group. Outsiders
may bad-mouth away, but insiders should always show a "united
front" and not bite the hand that feeds them. Yes you are being
fed. You are having your "habit" of telecommunications fed by
FidoNet. Yet with all the "good things" FidoNet has done over
the past few years, this latest item in the "bad things" column
has overshadowed everything else in my mind.
Look back, who ran the net in 1984/85? Ken Kaplan, Ben
Baker, Thom Henderson, Tom Jennings, and others. These people
poured everything they had into FidoNet only to have it turn on
them and bite them.
FidoNews 5-03 Page 2 18 Jan 1988
Tom Jennings gave us the means (via FIDO <tm>?) to even
have a FidoNet in the first place. He made it PD even though he
didn't have to, he did. Now there are almost 2500 nodes in the
net. Back when it was still just Fido and SEADOG there were 1200
nodes in the net (or there-abouts). Shareware was the "rage" but
shareware didn't work. Tom now SELLS Fido software. It is no
longer the free bbs of the future. It is now the finely tuned
commercial package he markets to "make a few dollars"
Ben Baker wrote the nodelist format for us. The same format
that, for the most part is exactly the same as it was in 1984
when it all started. Ben automated the process. I can remember
when FidoNet nodelists would have to be "updated" by hand. Try
that with the current nodelist (and bring your lunch). Ben
didn't charge a dime for his software either. And still doesn't.
Ken Kaplan ran the net from St Louis simply because TJ was
so busy upgrading Fido. Ken made sure new nodes were welcomed
into FidoNet, he answered a LOT of the questions about how to do
this and how to do that or who to contact to find out how. He
was in essence every help node all rolled into one. He built
this net (along with the others) from the ground up. And he is
still active it it, though maybe not as much as before.
Thom Henderson was the publicity arm of FidoNet. He wrote
the news (mostly himself) for about a year or more and
distributed this sometimes monsterous file from his offices. He
dedicated a machine (back then not a cheap item) strictly to
news and distribution of same. He dedicated a business line (in
NJ again not a cheap item) to a hobby. and most of all he gave
of his time, as did all the others who made FidoNet great.
Without these individuals there simply would be NO FIDONET.
There would be no echomail, no electronic email outside of a pay
service like CompuServe <tm> or the Source <tm> etc. There would
be far less telecommunications junkies in this world and far
more money in ma bells pockets from all the long distance calls
to "log onto a bbs"
Now if associating with these great folks (and not all of
them are in AlterNet) is treason or selfishness, then I am a
traitor. I am selfish. And YES I am in AlterNet for these
reasons.
If you find this offensive then look at the FidoNet
nodelist and locate the various Coordinators and help nodes.
Would you say they are "trying to help?" Would you say the
Echo coordinators are "trying to help?" Would you even go so far
as to say that the various help nodes are selfless to a fault. I
would.
Now I guess I will simply have to do as you say and "take
my ball and go home", right? You tell me what I should do. I
want to maintain contact with my "electronic" friends in BOTH
nets, however those in FidoNet are slamming me for trying. I
want to maintain meaningful discussions on a variety of topics.
FidoNews 5-03 Page 3 18 Jan 1988
Not don my Nomex undies and crank up the flamethrowers. I want
to have FUN, not wonder who I will offend next by stating my
position. Tough decision, you bet it is. I would be giving up a
lot to dump either of the "nets", yet like most of the other
AlterNet sysops, I too am a burnout, I too am 1 flame away from
"pulling the plug" and I too am tired of all the fighting, name
calling, and back-stabbing going on. If I have to give up some
friends simply because they will not assiciate with me because
of who I am friends with, I will give them up. Therefore FidoNet
be forwarned that I will dump FidoNet and all it's BS if I get
just one more flame. That is the reason for the "anonymous
writer" theme behind this. Not because I want to hide who I am
but because I do not want to quit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 4 18 Jan 1988
Gateways to the future:
Concerning FidoNet, Usenet, and the Future of Public Access
Wide Area Networking -- Doug Thompson, 221/162
It's New Years (actually a little past) and the time for a
review of the past 365 days and some forecasts for the next.
I initially sat down to write this the week *before* the
Alternet announcement in Fidonews. That event, it seems, has
suddenly eclipsed most other discussions and brought a number of
major issues into sharp relief. I suppose thanks is due the
Alternet folks -- and I can't help wonder if this might not be
part of their intent?
The very fact of a having a choice of a technically similar
alternate network provides an impetus for FidoNet to come to
grips with what it is, and what it is not. In an area of such
phenomenal growth as wide area computer networking, we must
wrestle just as seriously with what we are to become, and what we
wish not to become.
There are three things I want to talk about:
1) Growth -- the Future
2) Usenet Gateways
3) Expanded public Services
4) Our Financial Base
1) Growth rates
First some numbers. The oldest nodelist I have is from May
2, 1986. That's 19 months ago. (from time of writing, Dec. 86)
May 2 1986 789
June 19 1987 1523 + 13 mos
Dec 18 1987 2275 + 6 mos
Avg monthly growth rate May '86 June 87= 56.46 nodes per month
Avg monthly growth rate June - Dec 86= 125.33 nodes per month
Over the past 6 mos FidoNet has grown at the rate of 125.33
nodes per month. If this rate continues for the next year, we
will see nearly 4,000 nodes in FidoNet by next Christmas. The
limited stats here also suggest that the rate of growth more than
doubled between May of 86 and December of 87. If that increase in
the rate of growth continues, we could conceivably find ourselves
with five or six thousand nodes by next Christmas.
FidoNet seems to be doubling in size roughly every year. If
anyone has more thorough stats drop me a line!
Tom Jennings' hobby in 1984 has grown beyond what I imagine
were his wildest expectations at the time. It seems to be an idea
whose time has come, and is being more widely recognized as a
good idea all the time.
FidoNews 5-03 Page 5 18 Jan 1988
-- Rapid growth means most of us are relative newcomers --
Growth of this pace inevitably causes strains, and we see
lots of those in FidoNet. Having had some academic training in
history, I grew accustomed to looking at the "flow" of events
over the years rather than simply isolated snapshots. Among other
things shown by these stats is that at least half the sysops in
FidoNet have been participating less than 18 months. Given that
there is a drop-out rate as well as a growth rate, it may be that
about half have been participating less than one year and about
75% less than two. That makes the vast majority of us relative
newcomers, and our view of FidoNet is short enough to be called a
snapshot. But let's try to develop some snapshots into a movie.
The figures in use here are rough approximations. We do seem to
have an exponential growth curve though. At current growth rates,
by 1990, we could well have 30,000 nodes!
I am not saying this *will* happen for certain, but I am
persuaded at the moment that it is likely to happen. Forces which
will encourage continued growth include:
- declining costs and increasing capabilities of hardware
- better and more user friendly software and interfaces
which help non-experts jump in.
- recent expansion into new countries and new continents.
- self-propulsion: e-mail's value increases with the number
of people you can reach. The bigger the net becomes the
more the incentive to join.
- Gateways to other networks making FidoNet an access point
to many other and larger networks.
- faster modems which reduce phone bills, making
communication cheaper.
I want to think about the implications of some of these
things. Rapid growth means that we will continue to have a
majority of sysops with relatively brief experience in the net.
We will remain "amateur" in more ways than one.
I want to think about what it means to move from a hobbyist
playing with an idea that society at large doesn't understand to
the role of an operator in a world-wide computer network which
more and more people will be depending on as an important channel
of communication.
I want to think about the economics of this: who is going to
be carrying the cost of this international communication, and who
might become interested to try to build a private business around
the idea?
2) Usenet Gateways
During 1987 a number of FidoNet systems installed software
which enables the exchange of mail and echoes with another and
much larger computer network, Usenet.
FidoNews 5-03 Page 6 18 Jan 1988
Usenet consists of about 10,000 machines around the world.
Technically, Usenet is very similar to Fidonet and therefore
gateways are not all that difficult. There are vast differences
in the character of the two nets however.
Hardware in Usenet tends to be large computers owned by
universities or businesses. While there are a small number of AT
class IBM micros involved, for the most part the machines are DEC
Vax minis. Owners are commercial or educational institutions and
the operators are employees of those institutions. The users are
usually members of those institutions.
Unlike FidoNet, the communication work of these computers is
often a very small part of the computer's purpose. The computers
usually have other reasons to exist, and the communication work
is incidental. To the extent that the owners support Usenet
participation, they do so because of a perceived benefit for
their employees and/or students.
There is a lot of overlap in the type of people attracted to
the two nets, and a great commonality of purpose. The major
difference is that while the typical FidoNet sysop is an
owner-operator who is really accountable to no one (except to be
able to receive mail), the typical Usenet system administrator is
an employee of an institution responsible to the accountants and
managers for the system use. He is also very much more
responsible to his users, they pay him to keep the news and mail
flowing.
In these respects there is quite a difference, FidoNet
consisting of "free-agents", paying their own way, and Usenet
consisting of "corporation men" who do it as a job (although they
may well greatly enjoy it). Where a FidoNet sysop pays for his
mail (usually) a Usenet user or operator is rarely personally
charged. The institution absorbs the costs as part of the
overhead.
Another major difference is that Usenent is big. Some 10,000
machines, the smallest of which are on par with the largest
FidoNet systems. Usenet also has gateways to other networks,
including ArpaNet, Bitnet, CSNet, and other national and regional
networks around the world. The total number of users who have
access to e-mail on all these networks is very hard to estimate,
but I am pretty sure it is in the millions when you consider all
the nets to which Usenet gateways.
Accustomed to gatewaying to other networks, Usenet sites
generally seem reasonably receptive to installing FidoNet
gateways. The perception generally seems to be that the value of
Usenet increases in proportion to the number of e-mail addresses
that can be reached. Fidonet represents some tens of thousands of
addressable users, and is therefore worthwhile.
My experience in "grovelling" for a news and mail feed from
a Usenet site at a local university illustrates some other issues
which are probably of general relevance. I was aided in my effort
FidoNews 5-03 Page 7 18 Jan 1988
by the fact that I personally knew some of the Usenet operators
and had other campus affiliations. The major concerns of the
Usenet people were financial and technical. "How much is this
going to cost us?" They wanted to know what kind of controls, if
any, there would be on e-mail sent to them for forwarding, on
their dime. The second concern was technical reliability; "will
your gateway cause us any hassles?"
After providing much in the way of personal guarantees, a
gateway was approved, although it was clearly pointed out that
the approval could be suspended at any time. This raised a number
of concerns for me. The first had to do with accounting. If mail
was going to be moving through my system in both directions, I
had to keep track of how much it was costing me, and how much it
was costing the Usenet host. The second concern was my users. If
I gave them access to Usenet newsgroups, what kind of problems
might arise?
There were two concerns about the users. I suppose we've all
had problems of naive users not understanding that an echo area
is not for private messages to local users. And most of us have
experienced the twit problem, a user who is needlessly abusive
and enters inappropriate messages. Should such material get into
Usenet, I would receive the flak. I found myself in the
uncomfortable situation of being personally responsible to tens
of thousands of Usenet readers for whatever anyone might do on my
system, as well as being responsible for any errors I might make
:-).
Dealing with Usenet differs from dealing with FidoNet both
in scale, and in the level of professionalism expected. Usenet
operators are professionals. In dealing with Fidonet they expect
a similar professional attitude. Expensive errors are costing not
just a few dollars of *personal* money, but corporate or
institutional money. An inconvenience can effect hundreds or
thousands of people on whose approval the Usenet administrator's
*job* depends.
Running a gateway stretches the definition of hobby to the
limit.
Another very critical difference between FidoNet and Usenet
is revealed here, the users. FidoNet is accessible to virtually
anyone with a terminal and modem. Usenet is only accessible to
the public at a very few "public access Usenet" sites. My first
networking experience was in Usenet. I was so keen on it, I
wanted to extend the capability to everyone, and became
interested in creating a public access system. FidoNet nodes
running gateway software appeared to be the cheapest way to
establish public access to Usenet. A relatively friendly user
interface existed in Fido and Opus BBS systems, PD software was
available, and the hardware needed was affordable.
3) Financing
Some serious difficulties are revealed in opening access to
FidoNews 5-03 Page 8 18 Jan 1988
the public. Usenet is free. However, "free", in this context
simply means that someone else pays for it. Presently no device
exists to charge back to the user the cost of services rendered.
This is not because systems cannot charge users on a per message
or per hour basis, but because the costs of any given message may
be borne by hundreds, even thousands of different systems. A
large circulation newsgroup may end up occupying clusters on
10,000 or more hard-disks, and be telephoned to sites all over
the world. As in FidoNet, Usenet sites do not generally charge
each other for service. At the moment this is quite workable.
However, each Usenet site has a ceiling, a ceiling on funds and
cpu cycles and disk space for the network. General public access
could, if it did become popular, come to swamp the network. This
will not happen tomorrow. But, if network growth continues, it
is a real possibility.
Long term growth and general public access can only be
accommodated through a system of financing that allows for some
cost recovery when providing telecommunication services to
others. At the moment, extending services costs money. There is
thus a financial *disincentive* to expanding services. If there
were even the slightest financial *incentive*, and the money to
buy new boxes, service could be expected to expand more rapidly.
I would like to be in a position to "buy into" usenet,
rather than beg into it. I'd like to advertise my tiny "public
access" system and let it reach capacity. I'd like to be able to
earn enough money from that user public to buy more machines and
install more phone lines and bigger hard-disks. I'd like to know
that in using the services of other systems, in Usenent and in
FidoNet I was paying my way *and* making a financial contribution
to those other services, and not stuck in a dependency
relationship where every message was transferred as a favour.
In short I'd like to see the system opened up, and service
expanded. This cannot happen under current financing arrangements,
where every expansion is a financial burden which must be
limited.
Reciprocity is basically the name of the network game. Each
independent node or site in both networks provides value to
others. Some pay more than others, but it is in all our best
interests to keep the connections open as best we can. The
network's value *is* a function of how many people you can reach
. . . up to the saturation point.
That saturation point worries me. With continued growth,
traffic volume in echo mail (newsgroups in Usenent) will come to
exceed the storage and throughput capacity of all but the largest
systems. Newsgroups also seem to have a maximum participation
rate. When the traffic volume in a newsgroup reaches hundreds of
messages per day, it is impossible to keep up without some new
kind of sophisticated "screening" software. The best one to date
is the moderated "Digest". In this model, a moderator receives
all submissions, and compiles them into a digest which is very
similar in appearance and size to FidoNews. Unlike FidoNews,
FidoNews 5-03 Page 9 18 Jan 1988
Usenet moderators usually cull inappropriate material (and often
announce that they have done so).
Optimizing the use of resources, and sharing the cost burden
of expanded resources, can do much to increase the network
capacity with minimum resource allocation. The price of that
cooperation is a certain amount of autonomy. A site cannot
participate in a wide area cost-sharing plan to operate and
manage collective resources without sacrificing a little
autonomy. Without that cooperation, however, many economies
cannot be realized. With it, the cost of inter-continental
e-mail should drop to a few pennies per message. The fee is
nearly insignificant to the individual user. The cost to
individual gateway and zonegate systems, though, is crushing.
I am not the first one to point out that continued growth
will require centralized "network" services, rather than simply
"site" services. Large machines with large disks and fast modems
could be subsidized by the respective networks as store and
forward facilities for mail. The use of leased lines and batched
processing could bring the cost of reliable net-mail down to the
vanishing point. But achieving those savings requires consider-
able capital and a lot of labour.
Individual sites could then subscribe directly, or groups of
sites in a geographic area could pool their resources for a
routed link to a central machine.
In this manner, a skeletal device would be created whereby
the actual costs of providing efficient services could be
recovered. It seems obvious that the funding and labour
necessary to expand facilities to meet ever-increasing demand
will exceed the capacity of individual site and node operators.
There would also be a great deal more incentive for operators at
every level to provide better service if the bulk of the costs
were being borne by a large group of users, rather than the
individual operator himself.
One other fringe benefit -- based on the experience of
Usenet -- an employee responsible to the net for his job is
likely to provide a consistently high level of professionalism in
network services.
It would appear that the next few years will require us to
solve these problems one way or another. The only alternative
would seem to be to attempt to create a device to carefully limit
the size of the network, and restrict access to a select few.
While any particular network *could* do this, the public demand
for electronic mail is unlikely to abate until virtually every
phone line in the world has a telecommunication computer attached
to it.
Read that last sentence again.
A question which concerns me greatly is that of addressing
the issue of *organizing* and *financing* a public access e-mail
FidoNews 5-03 Page 10 18 Jan 1988
network. There appear to be two possible routes.
One is commercial. Where there is a public demand, there
will be businesses which attempt to meet that demand. The other,
already foreshadowed to some degree in both Usenent and Fidonet,
is the idea of a publicly owned, cooperatively managed,
self-financing network. The latter differs from the former in a
number of ways. While the end-product of the two might be quite
similar, the public system is owned by the public, and its owners
control it. Instead of subscribers, or customers, the user is a
participant -- a citizen of the net, if you will -- rather than a
customer of a service industry.
A public network could provide a huge scope for volunteer
participation. In doing so it would encourage innovation and
reduce overall network expenses. Both these attributes would not
only preserve some of the flavour of the amateur e-mail network
we have grown to know and love, but would enable a public network
to provide service at a cost well below that which a commercial
enterprise would have to charge.
The days of FidoNet being a small, exclusive club of
dedicated hobbyists are numbered. The network is too good, too
popular, too successful. Many who are not computer buffs in any
real way now want in in order to *communicate*.
It seems to me rather clear that some years down the line
there will be an international wide-area networking system which
is accessible to anyone for a fee. Either the present telecom
using public will create it and keep it under public ownership
(while keeping fees to a minimum) or private enterprise will
provide it as a consumer service (maximizing profit, of course).
-- Public vs. Private is not the same as Fee vs. Free --
Why would a public, co-operatively owned system be better
than a commercial one? This slips over into political philosophy,
but there are a few things worth considering.
1.) Because it doesn't have to earn a profit, it should be
able to provide cheaper service.
2.) Being already owned by the general public, it should be
freer of government regulation than a strictly commercial
enterprise.
3.) Adverse government regulations will be less likely when
the owners of the telecom utility and the voting public are
precisely the same people.
4.) Public control of network policy is much more likely to
be meaningful under public ownership.
5.) The user, rather than being a consumer whose only power
FidoNews 5-03 Page 11 18 Jan 1988
is to not subscribe, becomes a full and equal participant, as
active as s/he cares to be.
6.) Continued dependence on a large amount of voluntarism
could well not only encourage innovation and development but keep
user fees absurdly low.
7.) As the network grows in size, its influence in the
computer industry and over government regulation nationally and
internationally will also grow. In an age when high technology
and regulatory decision-making is more and more removed from the
ordinary life of the ordinary citizen, this would counter-balance
present tendancies toward technological elitism and dependence on
government "experts" to tell us what's good for us. The end-user
would have a much larger influence.
I guess my bias is out of the bag now :-)
I am *very* much aware that many different perspectives
exist on the large number of specific matters this paper touches
upon. My view is only one, and I'm not sure it is even the best.
Too many of the discussions on these matters I've read and
participated in seem to occur without an historical overview. I
hope this paper can contribute to our thinking about where we are
going in terms beyond simply "more of the same". The character of
the network will inevitably change with growth, and with changing
technology. We do not have the luxury of choosing to keep things
just as they are. Events will overtake us and change our network
whatever we choose to do, or not do.
If a commercial service comes along, for instance, that
offers access to news and e-mail cheaper than FidoNet itself,
(distinctly possible) what point will there be to an amateur
e-mail network?
There is no such thing as "free" e-mail. There is only
e-mail which you get someone else to pay for, or e-mail which you
pay for yourself. Currently, the costs in FidoNet are very un-
evenly distributed, and we depend not only on large volunteer
efforts, but on large volunteer financial contributions. A big
network, paid for only by a few of its most important links, does
not strike me as having much potential
I cannot begin to take the space to address each of the many
reservations I can already hear being expressed. I can offer some
points of departure for discussion, though.
An International FidoNet co-op, funded by its members, could
do two things almost immediately: it could provide cheap central-
ized services such as echo-mail and software backbones and zone-
gates. It could begin to build an organizational infrastructure
to reflect the will of the membership and influence the future of
wide-area telecommunication.
The latter involves many, many aspects, and could include
such things as negotiations with other networks and standard-
FidoNews 5-03 Page 12 18 Jan 1988
ization of gateway structures to assure universal access,
negotiation with hardware manufacturers concerning standards and
bulk discounts, establishing policies to prevent discrimination,
injustice, and abuse, provide legal advocacy and defence in the
murky waters of BBS liability, promote the expansion of network
links to new parts of the world, sponsor public education efforts
to promote intelligent use of e-mail and tele-conferencing,
sponsor promising research in new areas, coordinate research
internationally, liase with commerical and educational institu-
tions where mutual benefit might accrue, study ways in which
network services might be "sold" to subsidize cheap private
correspondence, work toward international telecommunication
standards and freedom of communication in other parts of the
world . . . etc. etc. etc. And all in the name of the
public, the public good, and the public's access to information,
rather than solely in the name of profit, control, and restric-
tion.
There are some who would say that IFNA, with its elected
Board, and wide-ranging, though largely undefined responsibility
for the net could be that International Network Co-Op. I guess
I'm one.
We're riding a fast-rolling snowball here in FidoNet today.
It's been five years since Tom Jennings' first preposterous
experiments, and nine years since Usenent's first two sites made
that first phone call. The snowflake has become a large snowball
accelerating down the hill. What may be less apparent is that
this snowball is on its way to becoming an avalanche.
As we debate these matters I would really like people to
devote 1% of their thought to where we might be in ten, twenty or
thirty years.
Forgive me for taking so long, if you have grown bored, and
forgive me for leaving so much out, if you are still interested.
In future weeks I hope to take time to probe some of the issues
touched on here in greater detail (depending on the response to
this piece).
I'd be really happy to hear thoughts and opinions from
readers. You can send me mail at any of the following
addresses:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St.,
UUCP: !watmath!fido!221!162!Doug_Thompson Unit B-3-11
!watmath!orchid!imprint Waterloo, Ontario
Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1
Internet: dt@221.162.fido.waterloo.edu (519) 746-5022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
watmath can be reached through utzoo and most backbone sites. My BBS
number is 519-747-1332.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 13 18 Jan 1988
Larry A. DiGioia
Sysop NEVERBOARD 129/17, Alternet 522/2
ALTERNET: It might have worked...
When I first saw the announcements for ALTERNET, I was
overjoyed. This was what I had been waiting for. A network
devoted to the "hobbyist spirit." Devoid of all of the silly
politics and petty bickering that has become a part of our
present network... I particularly admire the PEOPLE who took
the initiative and declared their independence. Because after
all, what is a network except a group of PEOPLE?
I looked forward to seeing all my friends, both locally and
nationally, in the new network. In fact, I did see some of them
in the alternet nodelists that started trickling out. My old NC,
a person who has helped me a lot these past years and whose
opinion I have always respected, was also among the first to
"jump on the bandwagon."
I never in a million years expected that a group of sysops,
most of whom spend THOUSANDS of dollars on hardware and phone
bills, would go COMPLETELY BONKERS over a proposed $20 a year
membership fee.
OK, fine. They didn't have to join. That was the choice:
ALTERNET is an ALTERNATIVE. They were free to stick with the
existing network, and not worry themselves to death about what
some of us others CHOSE to join. But no-o-o-o-o.... Then the
great, unseen network people started getting together on the
subject. They too, objected to the fee. These are the people
who run multi-line systems with multiple 9600 modems... I guess
they had pictures of ALTERNET coordinators driving off into the
sunset in Cadillacs bought with the poor, unsuspecting sysop's
hard-earned $20.
So, what do they do? Why of course, refuse echomail feeds to
anyone on the ALTERNET nodelist! What this really comes down to,
of course, is the same old thing: personality conflicts. It
isn't really the $20 that most people object to; it's the PEOPLE
in ALTERNET. Many have had the honesty to come out and say as
much.
So, we are being persecuted. The "powers that be" (and don't
think for a minute that I mean the IFNA) have decided that they
will do their best to prevent their old partners-in-argument
from doing something new, simple and exciting. Unfortunately,
they have the power to succeed, by the time-honored methods of
misinformation, character assasination and innuendo. They have
succeeded in shaping "popular opinion" to their own opinions.
None of this would matter to me if the callers to my board
had not gotten used to the excellent conversation and exchanges
of help and information that is provided by the wonderful links
FidoNews 5-03 Page 14 18 Jan 1988
of echomail. But you see, even if ALTERNET were composed of "the
cream of the BBS community," (which some might say it is,) it
would still not provide my callers with the variety of help and
discussion that the "old boy" network does now. And I no longer
have the choice to keep "the best of both worlds." So, sadly, I
must say goodbye to the pioneering people such as Thom, Ryugen,
and all the others who bring a breath of fresh air to this world
of ours. I wish them all the best of luck, in the pursuit of
something even better than we have now.
||Larry||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 15 18 Jan 1988
Released 01-05-88
WHAT IS OZONE.EXE
=================
OZONE is a crude but useful utility designed to make the
incorporation of the Anetlist into the Nodelist.
Using Xlatlist 2.85 you can add nodes from the Anetlist
into the nodelist using the OZONE statement in the control
file you use with Xlatlist.
However, as the Anetlist gets larger, this will mean
adding new entries by hand. So OZONE.EXE was born to help
in making this task easier.
OZONE.EXE will read the Anetlist and produce a straight
text file you can add to the Xlatlist.ctl file. It saves
you from typing in new OZONE statements each week.
HOW DO I RUN OZONE.EXE
======================
Simply type OZONE ANETLIST.XXX with XXX being the number
of the Anetlist you wish to process. The resulting text
file will be produced and called OZONE.LST in the same
directory.
Please be sure OZONE.EXE and ANETLIST.XXX are in the SAME
directory. OZONE does not in any way alter either the
Anetlist or the Nodelist.
WHERE CAN I GET OZONE.EXE
=========================
You can either file request it from 107/246 or download
it from that same board. The request name is OZONE and
will be honored at all times except NMH and the hour
before and after NMH.
DO I HAVE TO PAY TO USE OZONE.EXE
=================================
No payment is required. This utility will only be
used for a short period of time so no payment is required
or expected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 16 18 Jan 1988
Here are the latest patches for Quick Basic 4.0. The
first one is to eliminate the DTR problem encountered
when running a Quick Basic program.
DEBUG BCOM40.LIB
-D 100 L 5
xxxx:0100
Take the first <3> numbers of 'xxxx' and add 85.
Example: if you had something like 114F:0100 then
you would add 85 to 114 and get 199.
The new number you come up with will be 'yyy'.
-S yyy0:0 FFFF 83 C2 04 32 C0
DEBUG will now give TWO locations where these bytes
are located. Lets call the first address xxxx:yyyy
-U xxxx:yyyy L 6
You should see three lines. The 'xxxx:yyyy' should be
represented by an 'XOR AL AL'
-A xxxx:yyyy
xxxx:yyyy MOV AL, 1 (hit enter here)
Now repeat the process with the other number. (starting
at the U command) After you have done that, be sure to
save the file:
-W
Writing xxxx bytes
-Q
And there you have it!
Here is the recipe to remove the HALT which
QuickBASIC executes when an unrecoverable error is
encountered. This patch is only good for version 4.0 of
QB. However this may serve as a guide for future
versions of QB.
Note: Make sure you have backups of any files your are
going modify with DEBUG.....Edsel Murphy is not
dead........
A> debug BCOM40.LIB
-S xxxx:1 FFFF 75 FD E2 F8
Where xxxx equals the DS register
xxxx:A046
FidoNews 5-03 Page 17 18 Jan 1988
-U A042 A052
xxxx:A042 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8
xxxx:A045 48 DEC AX
xxxx:A046 75FD JNZ A045
xxxx:A048 E2F8 LOOP A042
xxxx:A04A B8070C MOV AX,0C07
xxxx:A04D CD21 INT 21 <----- this is
the wait for KYBD input
xxxx:A04F E80000 CALL A052
xxxx:A052 CB RETF
-E xxxx:A04d 90 90
This places NOP's where it used to wait for KYBD input.
-U A042 A052
xxxx:A042 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8
xxxx:A045 48 DEC AX
xxxx:A046 75FD JNZ A045
xxxx:A048 E2F8 LOOP A042
xxxx:A04A B8070C MOV AX,0C07
xxxx:A04D 90 NOP
xxxx:A04E 90 NOP
xxxx:A04F E80000 CALL A052
xxxx:A052 CB RETF
-W
-Q
Once you have done this now comes the fun part of re-
LINKing all of your programs. However if use the compile
option in QB that uses BRUN40.EXE (no /O option) then
this next patch is for you. This patch takes effect
immediately and requires no re-compilation of your
programs.
A> rename BRUN40.EXE BRUN40.ORG
A> debug BRUN40.ORG
-S xxxx:1 FFFF 75 FD E2 F8
Where xxxx equals the DS register
xxxx:5288
-U 5271 5294
xxxx:5271 F6067C0A03 TEST BYTE PTR [0A7C],03
xxxx:5276 751C JNZ 5294
xxxx:5278 E81BE1 CALL 3396
xxxx:527B B80780 MOV AX,8007
xxxx:527E E8EFE0 CALL 3370 <----- this
outputs "PRESS ANY .."
xxxx:5281 B9C800 MOV CX,00C8
xxxx:5284 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8
xxxx:5287 48 DEC AX
xxxx:5288 75FD JNZ 5287
xxxx:528A E2F8 LOOP 5284
FidoNews 5-03 Page 18 18 Jan 1988
xxxx:528C B8070C MOV AX,0C07
xxxx:528F CD21 INT 21 <----- this is
the wait for KYBD input
xxxx:5291 E802E1 CALL 3396
xxxx:5294 CB RETF
-E xxxx:527E 90 90 90
This NOP's the "PRESS ANY ..." output message.
-E xxxx:528F 90 90
This places NOP's where it used to wait for KYBD input.
-U 5271 5294
xxxx:5271 F6067C0A03 TEST BYTE PTR [0A7C],03
xxxx:5276 751C JNZ 5294
xxxx:5278 E81BE1 CALL 3396
xxxx:527B B80780 MOV AX,8007
xxxx:527E 90 NOP
xxxx:527F 90 NOP
xxxx:5280 90 NOP
xxxx:5281 B9C800 MOV CX,00C8
xxxx:5284 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8
xxxx:5287 48 DEC AX
xxxx:5288 75FD JNZ 5287
xxxx:528A E2F8 LOOP 5284
xxxx:528C B8070C MOV AX,0C07
xxxx:528F 90 NOP
xxxx:5290 90 NOP
xxxx:5291 E802E1 CALL 3396
xxxx:5294 CB RETF
-W
-Q
A> rename BRUN40.ORG BRUN40.EXE
Thanks To Ray Horton For The Second Set Of Patches.
For those of you that have not seen Quick BBS yet,
I urge you to call a system running it and take
a good look at what it is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 19 18 Jan 1988
=================================================================
WANTED
=================================================================
TRW Real Estate Information Systems, in Anaheim, CA is seeking a
creative Senior Programmer/Analyst to aid in the analysis,
design and implementation of a new generation of micro/mainframe
systems running in an IBM PC-AT compatible multitasking
environment.
We are looking for motivated, independent thinker with a minimum
of two years MS-DOS micro programming in C or Macro Assembler
and two years mini/mainframe programming. Experience in
structured development techniques and systems analysis/design
required. Familiarity with micro-mainframe communications,
micro hardware, and networks is desirable. Direct customer
interface is common, so good written and oral communication
skills are needed.
Please forward your resume with work history and references to:
TRW Real Estate Information Systems, Professional Employment,
Dept. DL-101, 2000 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 100, Anaheim, CA
92805. An equal opportunity employer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 20 18 Jan 1988
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
25 Aug 1988
Start of the Fifth International FidoNet Conference, to be
held at the Drawbridge Inn in Cincinnatti, OH. Contact Tim
Sullivan at 108/62 for more information. This is FidoNet's big
annual get-together, and is your chance to meet all the people
you've been talking with all this time. We're hoping to see
you there!
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latest Software Versions
BBS Systems Node List Other
& Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
Dutchie 2.80* EditNL 3.3 ARC 5.21
Fido 12e* MakeNL 1.10 ARCmail 1.1
Opus 1.03a Prune 1.40 ConfMail 3.31*
SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.85* EchoMail 1.31
TBBS 2.0M MGM 1.1
BinkleyTerm 1.30*
* 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 5-03 Page 21 18 Jan 1988
__
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
c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA
700 Bishop Street, #1014
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-4112
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 first elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1987. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 5-03 Page 22 18 Jan 1988
INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
ORDER FORM
Publications
The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido
1:1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing
them directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee
Chairmen provide us with the latest versions of each
publication, but we can make no written guarantees.
Hardcopy prices as of October 1, 1986
IFNA Fido BBS listing $15.00 _____
IFNA Administrative Policy DOCs $10.00 _____
IFNA FidoNet Standards Committee DOCs $10.00 _____
SUBTOTAL _____
IFNA Member ONLY Special Offers
System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____
SEAdog price as of March 1, 1987
ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member
Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $100.00 _____
Fido/FidoNet price as of November 1, 1987
ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member
International orders include $10.00 for
surface shipping or $20.00 for air shipping _____
SUBTOTAL _____
HI. Residents add 4.0 % Sales tax _____
TOTAL _____
SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN US FUNDS:
International FidoNet Association
c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA
700 Bishop Street, #1014
Honolulu, HI. 96813-4112
USA
Name________________________________
Zone:Net/Node____:____/____
Company_____________________________
Address_____________________________
City____________________ State____________ Zip_____
Voice Phone_________________________
Signature___________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink