1518 lines
71 KiB
Plaintext
1518 lines
71 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
Volume 8, Number 13 1 April 1991
|
|||
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|||
|
| _ |
|
|||
|
| / \ |
|
|||
|
| /|oo \ |
|
|||
|
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
|||
|
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
|||
|
| FidoNet (r) | | \ \\ |
|
|||
|
| International BBS Network | (*) | \ )) |
|
|||
|
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
|||
|
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
|||
|
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
|||
|
| (jm) |
|
|||
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|||
|
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
|||
|
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell
|
|||
|
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright 1991, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication
|
|||
|
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only.
|
|||
|
For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews is published weekly by and for the Members of the
|
|||
|
FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. It is
|
|||
|
a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors
|
|||
|
or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles
|
|||
|
to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
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.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
|||
|
Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are
|
|||
|
used with permission.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors
|
|||
|
and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
|
|||
|
Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every
|
|||
|
responsible submission received.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Table of Contents
|
|||
|
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
|||
|
WorldPol Sucks ........................................... 1
|
|||
|
An Experimental Election in Region 18 .................... 10
|
|||
|
Sister Nets - A proposal ................................. 13
|
|||
|
A Few Comments on WorldPol ............................... 15
|
|||
|
Another Top Ten List ..................................... 18
|
|||
|
More Comments ............................................ 19
|
|||
|
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 22
|
|||
|
Talk Me Through It, Honey ................................ 22
|
|||
|
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 24
|
|||
|
Latest Software Versions ................................. 24
|
|||
|
And more!
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 1 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
ARTICLES
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol Sucks
|
|||
|
Harry Lee 1:321/202
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yeah, it's just another of those old-timers grousing about
|
|||
|
things. What do they know, anyway? They're just a bunch of
|
|||
|
dinosaurs.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Further, this particular old-timer might be accused of having a
|
|||
|
vested interest in P4. Perhaps so, but I was schooled in egoless
|
|||
|
programming. That means you accept the FACT that you are going
|
|||
|
to make mistakes, learn from them, and move on. Chairman Len
|
|||
|
says it well: "A baseball player who hits .500 is considered to
|
|||
|
be doing amazingly well, but if you think about it, that means
|
|||
|
he's screwing up half the time."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Whether or not you choose to believe how seriously I take all
|
|||
|
that is your problem, not mine.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I'd LIKE to see a Policy5, since one of the main design goals of
|
|||
|
P4 was to provide a path to get from the IFNA environment to a
|
|||
|
Policy (or, more properly, FidoNet) driven environment, to define
|
|||
|
the mechanism needed to change Policy, to make that mechanism
|
|||
|
answerable to the net. We KNEW we weren't solving all the
|
|||
|
existing problems. That wasn't the goal. The goal was to make
|
|||
|
it POSSIBLE to solve those problems, in the absence of IFNA.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A radical restructuring of Policy makes a lot of sense While
|
|||
|
Policy3 and Policy4 both served their purposes, P4 at least is
|
|||
|
"spaghetti code", a set of patches to address the vacuum caused
|
|||
|
by the debacle known as (the implementation of) IFNA.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
However, a radical restructuring does not necessarily imply
|
|||
|
radical changes in the effects. WorldPol seems to want to do
|
|||
|
both. In programming school, I was taught this was insanity.
|
|||
|
Too many variables are being changed at one time. It's as if a
|
|||
|
mailer author not only changed the code, but also the protocols.
|
|||
|
What are you left to test against?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One of the primary design rules of P4 (at least while I was
|
|||
|
involved) was "very small delta from P3". (The logic was the
|
|||
|
more things you changed, the more things you gave people to vote
|
|||
|
against - one lesson of Western Democracy the authors seem not to
|
|||
|
recognize is that for better or for worse, people don't vote for
|
|||
|
things, they vote against them.) If radical restructuring is the
|
|||
|
goal of WorldPol, I submit it makes sense to attempt to keep the
|
|||
|
FUNCTION as close to P4 as possible.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 2 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ignorance of History
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The problems with WorldPol are rooted in an absolute lack of
|
|||
|
understanding of history. Correct that - it's not that it
|
|||
|
doesn't understand it - it doesn't even consider it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A simple, objective example of this is the list of credits.
|
|||
|
Whether or not the authors like it, my words, and Thom
|
|||
|
Henderson's words have been used, with absolutely no credit
|
|||
|
given. I'm not seeking any glory by pointing this out - although
|
|||
|
I do find irony in the fact that as bad as the authors seem to
|
|||
|
feel Pol4 was, they seem to have used a lot of the language I
|
|||
|
wrote into it in their efforts. It can't be said they are
|
|||
|
ignorant of this fact, unless the authors don't read FidoNews, as
|
|||
|
I've pointed it out here before.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
On the other hand, I should be thankful I don't have to go to the
|
|||
|
lengths Bill Bolton has to distance himself from it, so I guess
|
|||
|
overall, it's a wash at a personal level.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
More to the point, many of the problems that exist in WorldPol
|
|||
|
are problems that occurred to earlier developers of Policy.
|
|||
|
Clearly, we did not have all the answers. But we understood some
|
|||
|
of the questions. To the best of my knowledge, no effort was
|
|||
|
made to exploit those resources.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Policy4 development didn't start out with "Policy3 sucks" as a
|
|||
|
basis. In fact, I was impressed with the document called
|
|||
|
Policy3, and that only increased as I worked on P4. Further,
|
|||
|
part of what we did as a part of P4 development was to talk to
|
|||
|
the P3 developers about what we were trying to do. Anyone who's
|
|||
|
been in FidoNet for a while knows there is no love lost between
|
|||
|
Thom Henderson and myself, but I've nothing but respect and
|
|||
|
praise for his work in the form of P3. I wasn't a real fan of
|
|||
|
Thom's at the time I was working on P4, but we still managed to
|
|||
|
talk about it, because we both cared about FidoNet more than our
|
|||
|
personal differences.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As I've said elsewhere, FidoNet seems to have a very retarded
|
|||
|
institutional memory. I won't quote Santayana here, but his
|
|||
|
words apply in spades.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Different Social Orientation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol was written by people from a fundamentally different
|
|||
|
society. No, I'm not referring to their national origin, or
|
|||
|
language differences (although those cause some very real
|
|||
|
problems.) Zone 4 is a VERY small zone. It's smaller than any
|
|||
|
REGION in Zone 1. It's smaller than a number of NETS in Zone 1.
|
|||
|
It's about the size of FidoNet in the time of Policy 1.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 3 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are a lot of implications to be derived from this. When
|
|||
|
FidoNet was that small, things were a lot easier. Everyone knew
|
|||
|
each other, or knew each other one person removed. The people
|
|||
|
who were involved had to be very motivated to be involved,
|
|||
|
because being in FidoNet then was much more of a technical pain
|
|||
|
in the ass then it is now. The membership was more cooperative.
|
|||
|
Interpersonal differences were more easily resolved, because we'd
|
|||
|
all been through a common trial by fire, and we were all there
|
|||
|
for mostly the same reason - the sheer joy of playing with the
|
|||
|
technology.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I submit these qualities must exist to no small degree in Zone
|
|||
|
4. While the software technology is much more mature, they have
|
|||
|
to deal with phone systems that make mine look good. In some
|
|||
|
ways, I'm envious of them, as in many ways, FidoNet was much more
|
|||
|
fun when it was smaller.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But now it's big. It's not just big here - Zones 2 and 3 are
|
|||
|
pretty hefty, too. Many nodes (if not most) are run by people of
|
|||
|
far less technical competence than in "the old days". They are
|
|||
|
operated, in many cases, so people can consume their echomail.
|
|||
|
There is no common "trial by fire", at least, not here in Zone 1.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some might say it would be great to get back to those times. But
|
|||
|
that's impractical. The evolution of Policy has been necessary
|
|||
|
because what seems like common sense in a small group of
|
|||
|
similarly motivated individuals breaks down rapidly in larger
|
|||
|
group dynamics. Common sense, unfortunately, is not all that
|
|||
|
common.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I'm often called a jingoist. This is about as off base as a
|
|||
|
statement can get. Further, I believe the majority is not always
|
|||
|
right, and in any case, the rights of the minority must be
|
|||
|
protected. However, WorldPol is a serious case of the tail
|
|||
|
wagging the dog. It is a minority, and in many ways, an
|
|||
|
adolescent minority, telling the majority that everything it's
|
|||
|
done is wrong. It's a generation gap. What I'm trying to say
|
|||
|
here is we were teenagers once, too. Give us some credit for
|
|||
|
that, and for having grown through that. With luck, Zone 4 will
|
|||
|
eventually face the same problems of scale we've had to deal with
|
|||
|
for YEARS now. Certainly, we made mistakes in dealing with them,
|
|||
|
but WorldPol is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Western Style Democracy or Democracy in General
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol uses the nebulous phrase "democratic by western
|
|||
|
standards" to describe its political intent.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I don't have any argument with that at a philosophical level.
|
|||
|
It's at a practical level it falls to pieces.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 4 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I can't find a good definition of "democratic by Western
|
|||
|
Standards" anywhere. For instance, if you consider WorldPol
|
|||
|
analogous to the US Constitution (that's as standard a western
|
|||
|
democratic document I know), ratification of changes requires a
|
|||
|
two thirds vote of all the states. It's not clear to me if
|
|||
|
WorldPol needs a plurality, a majority of those voting, an
|
|||
|
absolute majority, or what.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Defining the Problem
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One of the things I found ironic was that a lot of the language I
|
|||
|
wrote that appears in P4 (and WorldPol) is of the form:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Here's the problem. Here's how we're trying to address that
|
|||
|
problem."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Or the reverse:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Here's a rule. Here's why this rule exists."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For the life of me, I can't see where WorldPol defines what
|
|||
|
problems existing in P4 it wants to solve. I'm not (by any
|
|||
|
means) saying there are no problems in P4. But in programming
|
|||
|
school, they always taught me to carefully define the problem
|
|||
|
before trying to solve it, or, dollars to donuts, you will end up
|
|||
|
solving the wrong problem, not solving any problem, or creating
|
|||
|
new ones. WorldPol is an object lesson on this point.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
All I see WorldPol say is something nebulous like there are local
|
|||
|
problems that P4 doesn't address. What problems? If it's
|
|||
|
possible to solve them at a high level, rather than implementing
|
|||
|
hundreds of different solutions to the same problem at lower
|
|||
|
levels, doesn't that make more sense?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geography
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geography is a very big part of my objections to WorldPol.
|
|||
|
FidoNet was not designed as an "I Me Mine" network. Networks
|
|||
|
exist to minimize the costs of the WHOLE, not as social clubs.
|
|||
|
Networks exist to minimize the cost of sending mail to a
|
|||
|
locality. If I have five messages to send to LA, but one of the
|
|||
|
nodes there belongs to a net in NJ, I'm going to make two LD
|
|||
|
calls instead of one to deliver those messages. That's stupid.
|
|||
|
That's more than stupid. That's annoying.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I've never understood the "oppression" people seem to believe
|
|||
|
geography imposes. I get angry when people say it's done to give
|
|||
|
the coordinators power. A statement like that couldn't be
|
|||
|
further from the truth. It's actually exactly the opposite -
|
|||
|
geography constrains the coordinators from making arbitrary
|
|||
|
decisions about who may or may not be in "their" networks. This
|
|||
|
constraint seems totally removed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 5 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geography is simply an objective technical standard. Since
|
|||
|
WorldPol eliminates geography, without providing an objective
|
|||
|
technical standard, and it defines objectivity as its driving
|
|||
|
logic, I find it illogical, and oxymoronic.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There already are provisions for exceptions to geography in P4.
|
|||
|
They state that the "next level up" and all coordinators involved
|
|||
|
have to agree to the exception.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If geography is removed as a criterion for membership, the
|
|||
|
overall costs to the network as a whole will be increased. How?
|
|||
|
Simple - every time someone has a spat with their NC, they will
|
|||
|
move to another net. For a period, they will be dual
|
|||
|
nodelisted. The diffs will be that much bigger to move around.
|
|||
|
Extra calls will be made to deliver mail. Dup loops will be
|
|||
|
created up the gazoo.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If, at any given time, 1% of the network is unhappy with their
|
|||
|
coordinators, in a net of 10,000, this means 100 nodes in some
|
|||
|
weird state of flux. Offhand, I'd say that if ONLY 1% of the net
|
|||
|
is unhappy about something, we're getting off easy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Even if some relaxation of geography is to be put in place, it
|
|||
|
should be specified. As it stands, it's been removed with an
|
|||
|
implication there are restrictions, but they are completely
|
|||
|
unspecified. I-Me-Mine types will press this to the limits.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
By eliminating geography, and not putting any other standard in
|
|||
|
place, WorldPol makes it legal to be a member of more than one
|
|||
|
local net, even outside of transitional periods.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I used to raise the analogy that you don't get to pick your phone
|
|||
|
exchange. WorldPol provides an even better one: you don't get to
|
|||
|
pick your voting district in a western democracy (other than by
|
|||
|
moving). WorldPol makes gerrymandering an individual right
|
|||
|
rather than an abuse by the government. It makes (EASILY)
|
|||
|
possible the old Chicago standard of democracy - vote early, and
|
|||
|
often. Once again, WorldPol is oxymoronic by its own standards.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol is fundamentally dangerous on this point. Given local
|
|||
|
Policy, and non-geographic nets, it is entirely possible to
|
|||
|
create special interest nets. This was tried years ago (Jr-Net)
|
|||
|
and found to be counterproductive. Echomail and file
|
|||
|
distribution networks are the answer to special interests, not
|
|||
|
the elimination of geography. In this I-Me-Mine age, these
|
|||
|
special interest nets easily can take on a positively evil tinge
|
|||
|
- the jumps between "CM only systems" and "9600 CM only" and
|
|||
|
"9600 CM systems with BBS' only" and "9600 CM systems with free
|
|||
|
access BBS' only" and "<your favorite mailer here> only" and
|
|||
|
"women sysops only" and "no blacks or gays or women or Hispanics
|
|||
|
or Jews need apply" aren't all that big. (After all, race and
|
|||
|
sex are objective facts, and therefore legal criteria for
|
|||
|
decision making under WorldPol.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 6 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bill of Rights versus Rules of Conduct
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Policy has always had a dualistic function. At one level, it is
|
|||
|
a code of conduct - the laws of the land. At another, it is a
|
|||
|
bill of rights.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I believe WorldPol dilutes - actually destroys might be more
|
|||
|
accurate - the latter function. Further, I believe that if we're
|
|||
|
going to start splitting things up, it makes MUCH more sense to
|
|||
|
split them along the "bill of rights/laws of the land" division
|
|||
|
than the "global/local" one.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This may well have been the intent of the authors. However, it
|
|||
|
is not reflected in work.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mediator Insanity
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
By altering the complaint process, WorldPol dramatically
|
|||
|
increases the workload of upper levels of the *C structure. In
|
|||
|
many ways, this is "anti-democratic".
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simple statistics make it obvious that given there are maybe 30
|
|||
|
people in my net, and 10,000 in all the others, that it's far
|
|||
|
more likely a complaint involving a person in my net will have to
|
|||
|
be handled at the RC or higher level than at the NC. Given there
|
|||
|
are perhaps 500 people in my region (just a guess), and 10,000 in
|
|||
|
all the rest, it's fairly likely that a complaint involving one
|
|||
|
party from my region will have to be resolved at the ZC level.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Further, this varies the number of levels of appeal, depending on
|
|||
|
where your complaint is initially made. Depending on who is
|
|||
|
complaining about your actions, you might have one or two or
|
|||
|
three levels at which to make your argument. Doesn't justice
|
|||
|
imply equal treatment under the law? Not under WorldPol.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I actually like George Peace. I don't have anything against him,
|
|||
|
or my RC, Don Dawson. I can't imagine why I'd want to make their
|
|||
|
lives miserable by handing them complaints that can and should be
|
|||
|
handled at the NC to NC level.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Coordinator Requirements
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Local Policies may increase the service requirements of local
|
|||
|
coordinators. A local policy may be put into place that requires
|
|||
|
the local host to provide OUTBOUND services, by its own example.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This creates Gordian knots that are too convoluted for me to even
|
|||
|
think about. It sounds to me like only rich white men might be
|
|||
|
allowed to be coordinators.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 7 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What happens if a net sets up requirements that cannot be
|
|||
|
attained or sustained?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Elimination of FidoNews Requirement
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The tyranny of the majority strikes again.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
While diffs may be all we need to technically operate, FidoNews
|
|||
|
conveys the spirit. Or it did, until WorldPol made it optional.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Further, since the "eliminate FidoNews" option seems to run up
|
|||
|
the chain, it appears to me that 51% of a ZONE could decide the
|
|||
|
other 49% are on their own with regards to FidoNews.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If FidoNews is the official newsletter of FidoNet, how are
|
|||
|
official notices to be made to those areas that decide they don't
|
|||
|
need FidoNews? Is Policy6 going to be distributed in the
|
|||
|
nodediff? And are the coordinators going to distribute a
|
|||
|
discussion about Policy6 in the diffs? Or are we going to create
|
|||
|
mandatory echomail conferences? And if we do the latter, what
|
|||
|
happens to those folk that want to use GroupMail? Or those folk
|
|||
|
who are in the net for their own reasons, and neither support nor
|
|||
|
desire echomail?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Unanimous Election of IC
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The IC must be selected unanimously by the ZC's and is removed by
|
|||
|
a majority. Once again, what means majority - majority of those
|
|||
|
voting, or absolute majority? And what happens when (not if) the
|
|||
|
ZC's can't come to unanimous agreement on an IC?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Changing the Defaults
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol changes the defaults wholesale. While this may or may
|
|||
|
not be a good idea, it has to be carefully considered.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The main example of this is the selection of *C's. Where before
|
|||
|
the default was by appointment, now it is by election.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Transitional Problems
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol declares existing Policy to be in effect where WorldPol
|
|||
|
is not specific and local policy has not yet evolved. Granted,
|
|||
|
the problem of transition will be encountered with any drastic
|
|||
|
restructuring of Policy. However, this water seems awfully cold
|
|||
|
and deep to me.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 8 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Let's use geography as an example. I would guess the authors
|
|||
|
might argue that the "geography exception rules" of P4 are still
|
|||
|
in effect under WorldPol. From my perspective, that's not how it
|
|||
|
reads, and given some experience with Policy complaints, I know
|
|||
|
MANY will argue the other side. WorldPol states that geography
|
|||
|
is no longer a criteria, therefore, clauses relating to it in
|
|||
|
subordinate Policies are invalid.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Not Final And Yet We're Voting On It
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is the most amusing statement in the whole document. It
|
|||
|
goes well out of its way to say "This isn't the real thing" and
|
|||
|
yet we are voting on it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There appears to be one whole line missing from the version in
|
|||
|
FidoNews, as well as numerous syntactic problems. Are we voting
|
|||
|
on what was in FidoNews, or what the authors intend? Excuse me,
|
|||
|
but I'd rather vote on something concrete, not intentions. It's
|
|||
|
not that I question the intentions of the authors - it's that
|
|||
|
I've learned how the best intentions can be abused by others.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Answers
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I don't claim to have all (or even any) of the answers to these
|
|||
|
problems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
During the last great IFNA election, there was some development
|
|||
|
of a Policy structure, I believe by John Roberts and others, that
|
|||
|
made a lot of sense to me.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rather than dividing Policy along geographic lines, it was
|
|||
|
structured along functional lines. Sub-Policies related to
|
|||
|
specific problems, not localities.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As I said earlier, the most important suggestion I can make is to
|
|||
|
carefully define the problems people feel need solving, determine
|
|||
|
which ones really are problems, and pick a very small number of
|
|||
|
them to try to solve. To me, it seems the most fundamental
|
|||
|
problem is the structure of Policy as opposed to the Policy
|
|||
|
itself.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Finally, the authors of WorldPol, after spending some time
|
|||
|
studying history, should follow the basic rules of Boston driving
|
|||
|
while developing Policy. When you drive in Boston, you look at a
|
|||
|
situation, and determine what is in the selfish interest of each
|
|||
|
of the drivers in that situation. It doesn't matter if the light
|
|||
|
is red for the other guy, or if you have the right of way, or
|
|||
|
that it doesn't make sense to pull into the oncoming lane to make
|
|||
|
a turn. If it makes sense for that selfish SOB to do any of
|
|||
|
those things to get where he's going quickly, he will do them.
|
|||
|
So long as you drive with that in mind, you'll avoid a great
|
|||
|
number of accidents. (Note carefully I didn't say all, because
|
|||
|
it's impossible for a logical mind to comprehend just how
|
|||
|
illogical some people can be.)
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 9 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the case of Policy, what makes sense to the authors CANNOT
|
|||
|
merely be assumed or implied, because if there's any nebulous
|
|||
|
wording, it can, and will be used against all of us in a Policy
|
|||
|
dispute.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 10 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fred Niemczenia
|
|||
|
Fidonet 1:371/7
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An Experimental Election in Region 18
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It is hard to believe that it was barely a month ago when Region
|
|||
|
18 elected a new Regional EchoMail Coordinator. I've delayed
|
|||
|
publishing, so as not to interfere with the recent ZEC 1
|
|||
|
election. Amnon Nissan is a candidate.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The last year has been exciting for the democracy proponents in
|
|||
|
FidoNet. I think we all agree that elected coordinators command
|
|||
|
more respect than anointees. February 1990 was a significant
|
|||
|
month in Region 18. Our REC decided to step down after doing a
|
|||
|
fantastic job for three years. He was unfortunately anointed to
|
|||
|
the position after a previous election had been invalidated by
|
|||
|
the zone coordinating structure. I won't mention names! That
|
|||
|
is in the past. Amnon Nissan wanted a fair election for his
|
|||
|
replacement. He kept his word.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The election was defined as all current NEC's having one vote for
|
|||
|
two willing and able candidates: Steve Cross and Dave Corthell.
|
|||
|
Some of us questioned the process whereby only the NEC's could
|
|||
|
vote. I argued that a popular vote would represent the
|
|||
|
individual SysOps' wishes AND would eliminate the unfair
|
|||
|
advantage that a small net has over a large net in voting. The
|
|||
|
cry was One NODE, One Vote vs. One NET, One Vote.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Well, the decision had already been made. I offered a
|
|||
|
compromise. Why not conduct an experimental popular election as
|
|||
|
well? For the first time we could all see if it really makes a
|
|||
|
difference. Amnon thought it a fantastic idea. It would need
|
|||
|
two separate impartial vote counters. Ben Mann (RC18) would
|
|||
|
collect the One NET, One Vote and I would collect the popular
|
|||
|
vote. The individual NEC's would collect SysOp votes, and
|
|||
|
forward copies to Ben and myself. The following ballot went out
|
|||
|
via NetMail and EchoMail:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dear Network Echomail Coordinator,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Our REC, Amnon Nissan has endorsed an experiment to allow the
|
|||
|
tabulating of the raw node votes in the Region 18 REC
|
|||
|
elections. This has the approval of the Zone and Region
|
|||
|
Coordinators. The intent is to demonstrate if any difference
|
|||
|
exists between the following methods:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(a) A network tabulation where a network has ONE vote. This is
|
|||
|
referred to as ONE NET, ONE VOTE.
|
|||
|
(b) A network tabulation where the raw vote is counted and
|
|||
|
processed. This is called ONE NODE, ONE VOTE.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 11 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Only method (a) is binding. Method (b) is experimental. An
|
|||
|
additional comment is required. If you not wish to have your
|
|||
|
net's vote published, your report will be tabulated in a LUMP
|
|||
|
count with other nets not wishing to be individually listed. I
|
|||
|
do need your response for method (b). Send (a) to Ben Mann.
|
|||
|
The findings will be published in FidoNews.
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
Region 18 experimental REC election. Password:______
|
|||
|
NET:______ Dave Corthell:_____ Steve Cross: _____
|
|||
|
Abstain:_____ Fill in the actual numbers of raw votes. e.g.
|
|||
|
17, 15, 3. I do [ ] don't [ ] want the raw vote
|
|||
|
published.
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The following is a list of Nets responding to the Region 18
|
|||
|
Experimental Ballot. Where a DON'T PUBLISH request was made,
|
|||
|
the NET is identified by the password. Where no preference is
|
|||
|
indicated, I publish it. I hope we will generate some meaningful
|
|||
|
statistics for FidoNews. Special thanks to those responding!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NET or No. of Dave Steve
|
|||
|
PASSWORD NODES CORTHELL CROSS ABSTAIN PUBLISH
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shorty 15 7 0 1 N
|
|||
|
bihs 13 2 0 12 N +
|
|||
|
Albhosmor 8 4 1 2 N
|
|||
|
DHARMA 41 9 1 1 N
|
|||
|
112 22 3 7 0 Y
|
|||
|
123 47 1 27 0 NP &
|
|||
|
151 83 10 3 - NP
|
|||
|
360 9 6 0 4 Y +
|
|||
|
361 15 7 1 5 Y
|
|||
|
362 35 6 1 0 NP
|
|||
|
363 64 7 7 - Y
|
|||
|
369 35 7 3 23 Y
|
|||
|
371 20 11 0 4 Y
|
|||
|
372 37 4 0 28 Y
|
|||
|
376 23 1 0 21 NP +
|
|||
|
3600 4 3 0 1 Y
|
|||
|
3601 12 9 1 0 NP
|
|||
|
3602 8 4 0 4 Y
|
|||
|
3604 10 - - - NP *
|
|||
|
3612 11 9 0 2 Y
|
|||
|
3615 8 3 0 0 NP &
|
|||
|
3617 7 4 0 1 Y
|
|||
|
3620 4 5 0 0 NP +
|
|||
|
====== ===== ===== ===== =====
|
|||
|
23 Nets 531 122 52 109
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Miscellany: 28 of 48 NECs reported OFFICIAL results to Ben Mann.
|
|||
|
OFFICIAL results were 24 (86%) Corthell and 4 (14%) for Cross.
|
|||
|
Popular results were 70% Corthell and 30% Cross. There are 942
|
|||
|
eligible nodes in Region 18. It would appear 44% were denied
|
|||
|
participation by their coordinators.
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 12 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* Refused to participate in experiment, but returned ONE NET,
|
|||
|
ONE VOTE preference.
|
|||
|
+ Denotes anomaly, but the vote was counted. My baseline was
|
|||
|
the nodelist before elections. Host and Hub entries were
|
|||
|
not entitled dual voting.
|
|||
|
& Denotes last minute update.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What did this experiment prove? I noted 2 significant items.
|
|||
|
Perhaps you will note other items from the raw data above?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(1) Apathy is as much a problem in FidoNet as in the real world.
|
|||
|
It seems that once the battle for democracy is over, folks
|
|||
|
just don't care to participate.
|
|||
|
(2) The coordinating structure can't be relied on to collect
|
|||
|
votes. Only 58 percent reported official results to Ben
|
|||
|
Mann and 48 percent reported experimental data to me. How
|
|||
|
can a SysOp participate if a mechanism isn't in place for
|
|||
|
them to learn of the issues or respond to.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I think it is imperative that the candidates themselves poll
|
|||
|
nodes and encourage participation. No one else will do it. That
|
|||
|
was been proved again and again and again...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Amnon Nissan, Ben Mann, and myself had one heck of a time trying
|
|||
|
to figure out who the actual NEC's were. Many Region 18 Net
|
|||
|
Coordinators aren't putting in the UNEC flags. Come on guys!
|
|||
|
Get it right! I think all coordinators need to review their
|
|||
|
segments manually at least 6 times a year. An NEC from a
|
|||
|
different region may want to establish a non-backbone echo. The
|
|||
|
U flags are important.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We need to establish a realistic vote counting mechanism. Too
|
|||
|
many things are getting lost between the Region Coordinator and
|
|||
|
the individual SysOp. I know the guys at the top are interested,
|
|||
|
but middle management is not participating in many cases. Let's
|
|||
|
fix another cause of apathy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Feel free to respond to Fred Niemczenia at 1:371/7.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 13 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Volker Manns
|
|||
|
FidoNet 1:358/0
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
+---------------------------------------------------+
|
|||
|
I Sister Nets - EchoMail with a different flavor! I
|
|||
|
+---------------------------------------------------+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ever since joining FidoNet, I have been fascinated with the
|
|||
|
concept of EchoMail. It is a truly universal medium to
|
|||
|
exchange ideas, meet and get to know different people and
|
|||
|
cultures with all their ideals and beliefs.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It does not matter whether you're black or white, male or
|
|||
|
female, handicapped or not. EchoMail does not discriminate.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I went back to Germany last fall (born and raised there),
|
|||
|
and met with people who had never seen me before, yet were
|
|||
|
willing to treat me with friendship and hospitality because
|
|||
|
we wrote some messages back and forth, enjoying each others
|
|||
|
company from afar.
|
|||
|
You have to experience this to truly appreciate it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Every Net has their own Echo areas, some as a pre-determined
|
|||
|
minimum requirement in joining the Net (designed to act as
|
|||
|
an info-pool for the Net), others optional as SIGs for
|
|||
|
particular areas of interest within their area. Some of the
|
|||
|
latter may then grow into nationally or internationally
|
|||
|
distributed echoes. The system works well.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I would like to take the local Echo area idea a bit further:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
By mutual choice of two reasonably compatible cities (or
|
|||
|
Nets), mostly determined by their size (userbase), I suggest
|
|||
|
a shared Echo area for the sole use of these two cities
|
|||
|
(Nets). This would be on an intercontinental (inter-zonal?)
|
|||
|
basis, not national or state to state. (After all, national
|
|||
|
stuff is covered to exhaustion by the news media...)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yes, there are MAJOR logistical problems:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Language.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
However, as I read the international Echoes, English seems
|
|||
|
to prevail anyhow, everyone seems to adopt and overcome this
|
|||
|
obstacle in some form.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Cost.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Can a Net containing 10 nodes afford to send messages across
|
|||
|
the pond via modem? High speed modems seem a must, but two
|
|||
|
minutes of connect from Canada to Europe are still in the
|
|||
|
$3.00 plus range. Considering 30 days to a month, Nets and
|
|||
|
users splitting costs, that would come to $2.25 per sysop
|
|||
|
(using the above hypothetical example).
|
|||
|
Would this be acceptable? You tell me.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 14 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Interest.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It's tough enough getting an entire Net to agree on
|
|||
|
something as silly as a poll schedule, let alone an
|
|||
|
international Echo connect. Can a majority vote decide on
|
|||
|
this? That hardly seems fair. But I think if everyone
|
|||
|
understands the concept, it'd be a worthwhile effort for all
|
|||
|
involved and will therefore find acceptance in a lot of
|
|||
|
Nets. The fewer the number of nodes, the easier the decision
|
|||
|
I guess...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So where do I start?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Well, I decided that the Snooze would be as good a place as
|
|||
|
any. I'd like to organize a pool of interested Nets in Zone
|
|||
|
1 and at the same time encourage the formation of similar
|
|||
|
pools in the other Zones. From there we could play
|
|||
|
matchmaker and interested Nets could figure out their
|
|||
|
individual details from there.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I do not know what looms on the WORLDPOL or ECHOPOL horizon,
|
|||
|
or how new policies may affect, hinder or prohibit such an
|
|||
|
undertaking. I just happen to think that it's a good idea
|
|||
|
that should be pursued.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Your comments and ideas on this are welcome and appreciated,
|
|||
|
I would like to hear from all interested Nets and Zones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kind regards,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Volker Manns
|
|||
|
NC - 1:358/0
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 15 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jack Decker
|
|||
|
1:154/8 Fidonet
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A Few Comments on WorldPol
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Past issues of Fidonews have contained a lot of carping about
|
|||
|
WorldPol. What I'd like to know is, where were all the
|
|||
|
complainers during the formulation of WorldPol? I recall
|
|||
|
comments on WorldPol being solicited on several occasions, and
|
|||
|
apparently most of the complainers weren't interested enough to
|
|||
|
send their comments in to the group working on WorldPol. This,
|
|||
|
of course, is the great Fidonet tradition... let someone else
|
|||
|
do all the work and then flame the **** (insert expletive of
|
|||
|
choice here) out of them when the final proposal is presented.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I had some reservations about earlier versions, too, but I sent
|
|||
|
a netmail message containing some of my problems with the
|
|||
|
document. I got a rather thoughtful response from Pablo which
|
|||
|
indicated that my comments had at least been considered. No, I
|
|||
|
didn't get everything I asked for, but at least you and I was
|
|||
|
given the opportunity to help shape this document, which is
|
|||
|
more than we can say about a lot of previous efforts.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Now to the bottom line: Maybe it's not perfect, but is it
|
|||
|
better than Policy 4? This sort of reminds me of the old
|
|||
|
backhanded insult: "You're smarter than you look, but then
|
|||
|
you'd have to be!" Almost anything written by reasonable
|
|||
|
people would have to be better than Policy 4, in my opinion.
|
|||
|
In particular, WorldPol does two things that are long needed:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1) It extends the right to vote on later versions of Policy
|
|||
|
down to the average sysop. Now, I've heard a lot of people
|
|||
|
complain that the logistics of such a vote would be a
|
|||
|
nightmare. When someone says that, I have to wonder what their
|
|||
|
real motives for opposing it are. C'mon, people, if you're in
|
|||
|
Fidonet you have a computer, and computers are real good at
|
|||
|
counting things. Consider a municipal election in a city that
|
|||
|
has maybe 10,000 voters (this would be a small city by American
|
|||
|
standards). Usually what happens is that each precinct tallies
|
|||
|
up the votes for their precinct, then sends the results to a
|
|||
|
central place that receives and tallies the vote counts from
|
|||
|
each precinct. We do the same thing in Fidonet, except we
|
|||
|
subdivide the work even further - the NC counts the votes from
|
|||
|
his net and forwards them to the RC, which takes the vote
|
|||
|
totals from his region and forwards them to the ZC, and so on.
|
|||
|
We've conducted several elections this way in Zone 1, and apart
|
|||
|
from those few die-hards who've never liked the idea of giving
|
|||
|
the average sysop any say in how Fidonet is run, I've heard few
|
|||
|
complaints about the election process.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2) It puts an end to certain geographic restrictions in
|
|||
|
Fidonet. Unfortunately, this is the one thing that may kill
|
|||
|
it, since only NC's (and above) are allowed to vote on it, and
|
|||
|
there are still many NC's out there who, in their own little
|
|||
|
black hearts, like the idea of being able to force sysops (and
|
|||
|
potential sysops) in a given geographic area to deal with them
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 16 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
and them alone. One of the key features of a democratic
|
|||
|
organization is that you are free to join any branch of the
|
|||
|
organization that you wish. I know of no organization in the
|
|||
|
"real world" (other than those connected with various levels of
|
|||
|
government, and Fidonet certainly isn't part of the
|
|||
|
government!) that require people to deal only with one
|
|||
|
particular branch or office based solely on their place of
|
|||
|
residence (I DO know of one religious organization that
|
|||
|
insisted that members attend only the group "serving" their
|
|||
|
particular neighborhood, but this group also tried to control
|
|||
|
many other aspects of their members' lives, including where
|
|||
|
they should live and whether or not they should date or
|
|||
|
marry!).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We need only look to UseNet, which is MUCH larger than Fidonet,
|
|||
|
to prove that an electronic mail and conference network can be
|
|||
|
fully functional without giving considerations to geography.
|
|||
|
Geographic restrictions are particularly inappropriate in the
|
|||
|
United States, where differing tariffs for intrastate and
|
|||
|
interstate calls can cause toll calls within one's home state
|
|||
|
to be priced at a much higher rate than calls to a neighboring
|
|||
|
state (it costs more to call a place 200 miles away in my home
|
|||
|
state than to call a place 2,000 mile away elsewhere in the
|
|||
|
U.S.).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It is my hope that *C's will ask themselves, if I were a sysop,
|
|||
|
would I want a vote on policies that will affect my hobby?
|
|||
|
Would I want the freedom to associate (or to NOT associate)
|
|||
|
with whomever I please, or would I want to be forced to be part
|
|||
|
of a particular group based solely on the place I happen to
|
|||
|
live at?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When we were being asked to vote for Policy 4, we were told
|
|||
|
"it's not perfect but it least it has some mechanism to allow a
|
|||
|
vote on future policies, and it can be changed later." Well,
|
|||
|
later is now. Policy 5 isn't perfect (and if you are waiting
|
|||
|
for a perfect policy, it may be a long time in coming) but it
|
|||
|
IS better than Policy 4. Yes, it's a bit vague in spots but so
|
|||
|
are present policies. Yes, it should be modified to give more
|
|||
|
consideration for points and point-ops, but when the average
|
|||
|
sysop is allowed to vote on future policies, I think you will
|
|||
|
see policies that give more consideration to points.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If we are waiting for the PERFECT policy document, we may have
|
|||
|
a long wait! But, we should ask ourselves whether the proposed
|
|||
|
document is better than what we have now. The main effect of
|
|||
|
the proposed policy is to bring more democracy to Fidonet and
|
|||
|
to lessen the adverse impact that the few in *C positions can
|
|||
|
have on the many who are in Fidonet, which still maintaining
|
|||
|
enough control to keep the mail flowing smoothly, and allowing
|
|||
|
for local policies that might be needed to address unusual
|
|||
|
local conditions.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 17 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Let's look upon WorldPol not as the final document with which
|
|||
|
we'll have to live for the next 20 years, but as one more step
|
|||
|
along the road to a fully democratic Fidonet. It's not
|
|||
|
perfect, but it's a good policy and one that we can build upon
|
|||
|
in the future.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 18 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Holdyer Horses
|
|||
|
e:pi/lambda.nu
|
|||
|
Another Top Ten List
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Category
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Given WorldPol, it's possible to have your own little social
|
|||
|
clubs for nets. Here's a list of new nets just waiting for
|
|||
|
WorldPol's adoption so they can rise phoenix like from the ashes
|
|||
|
of that awful, mean, nasty, old Policy4.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From the Home Office in Wausau, Wisconsin:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Top 10 New Local Networks Possible Under WorldPol
|
|||
|
(Anton, a drum roll please!)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
10 FastNet - 9600 Only
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9 NeXTNet - Only REAL Computers, not clowns (er-clones)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8 NerdNet - Show your pocket protector at the door
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7 WitchNet - Applications accepted only via crystal ball.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6 ScumbagNet - Only Barristers Need Apply
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5 NumerologyNet - Phone numbers must sum to 3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4 BeerNet - Usually served at bars (sorry, that's beer nuts)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3 SkateboardNet - Long Green Hair De Rigeur
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2 GeezerNet - Pre-Multinet Nodes Only
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 HoundNet - No Fat Chicks
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 19 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Aaron Goldblatt
|
|||
|
1:130/20.1102 FidoNet
|
|||
|
20:491/223.0 MailNet
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
More Comments on WorldPol
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I've been hearing a lot about WorldPol v1H recently. In
|
|||
|
FidoNews, in local echos, in other networks, everywhere.
|
|||
|
WorldPol is causing a lot of discussion in my BBS world. And, it
|
|||
|
seems, a lot of apprehension. In FidoNews 811 I brought out my
|
|||
|
problems as related to WorldPol's treatment of pointops, so I
|
|||
|
won't do that again in the detail I have previously.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
With the realization that I may soon have to live under POLICY5
|
|||
|
I feel it's my responsability to air my views or give up the
|
|||
|
right to complain about the results (I hold that those who do
|
|||
|
not vote in civil elections have no right to gripe about those
|
|||
|
elected . . . in this instance I'm not allowed to vote but I feel
|
|||
|
I still have to air my views).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I printed hard copies of FidoNews 810, 811, and 812 to take a
|
|||
|
look. So here we go. :-)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
There is no clause in WorldPol requiring geographic/technical
|
|||
|
networks, which is what we have now. Upon the adoption of
|
|||
|
WorldPol that clause will be grandfathered into the Zone
|
|||
|
policies. But when the grandfathering is defeated by the
|
|||
|
adoption of Zone policies (and it will happen, I assure you) we
|
|||
|
will really have a mess on our hands. Here's one likely
|
|||
|
scenario.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A pointop sets up his own BBS. While he was a pointop he
|
|||
|
established a reputation of being a nasty twit. He applies to
|
|||
|
his local network and is denied for whatever reason. But he
|
|||
|
DOES meet the FTSC requirements for holding a node address and
|
|||
|
has not previously engaged in any Annoying or Excessively
|
|||
|
Annoying Behavior. He can't afford the long distance charges
|
|||
|
to join another network and so is denied access to FidoNet,
|
|||
|
not because he is incapable of running a reliable system or
|
|||
|
engaged in EAB, but because the NC (or whomever) doesn't like
|
|||
|
him.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the above scenario the NC doesn't issue an address because
|
|||
|
s/he knows that the pointop can apply to another network where
|
|||
|
his reputation isn't known. But he also knows that the pointop
|
|||
|
can't afford the LD charges of communicating with his network,
|
|||
|
and so is denied complete access to FidoNet.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But with geographic/technical-only networks there is no reason
|
|||
|
for the NC not to issue an address - the sysop is just obnoxious
|
|||
|
but hasn't been declared EA by anybody (including the NC). The
|
|||
|
variations on this theme are almost infinate. So much for that.
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 20 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
There is much hubbub about the new rights of "grunt sysops" to
|
|||
|
vote. Giving the normal sysops the vote is great and wonderful.
|
|||
|
But it presents some logistical problems to those counting votes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The vagueness with which WorldPol 1H speaks of elections and
|
|||
|
procedures can lead to the idea that, without an election policy
|
|||
|
at the Zone level (and there is no gurantee that one will come
|
|||
|
about), the ZC will be left counting votes and doing verification
|
|||
|
of eligibility. And in the unlikely event that each voting
|
|||
|
sysop carries the election echo vote verification could take
|
|||
|
forever.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WorldPol's refrence to "western standards" is really strange,
|
|||
|
because the "western standard" by which you judge elections is
|
|||
|
different depending on what country you're in. According to many
|
|||
|
in the United States, the system of elections used in Israel
|
|||
|
(generally regarded as a democratic country) is crazy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An ideal system for system of Zone-wide elections (that is, where
|
|||
|
every sysop in a Zone gets a vote) works like this:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The sysop at 1:130/2991 sends his vote to 1:130/0. 1:130/0
|
|||
|
counts and verifies all votes he received, and then sends the
|
|||
|
totals to 1:19/0, the RC.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The RC totals and verifies the numbers from each net, and
|
|||
|
verifies the votes of any regional independants who choose to
|
|||
|
vote. He then sends the totals to the ZC.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The ZC totals and verifies the numbers from each region, and
|
|||
|
then announces the results.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
With this system electorial advantage of large networks is
|
|||
|
retained while still giving representation to small networks. In
|
|||
|
Zone-level elections the advantage of large networks is minimized
|
|||
|
anyway since the likelyhood of every member of the largest
|
|||
|
networks in a Zone all voting the same way is somewhere between
|
|||
|
zero and nil.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But who knows what could come out in election procedures adopted
|
|||
|
after WorldPol. Suppose, for instance, that Zone 1's policy does
|
|||
|
not set up election procedures. Each of the 10 Regions in Zone 1
|
|||
|
then must come up with an election policy, and there is no
|
|||
|
telling what they might be. And then what about that Zone-wide
|
|||
|
election for which there is no procedure? And how about the
|
|||
|
idea that Region 1:19 doesn't come up with an election policy,
|
|||
|
either, then each of the 32 networks has to come up with one, and
|
|||
|
given the way in which each net does its business, there's no
|
|||
|
telling what might happen.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 21 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The solution? How about a policy that spells out exactly what
|
|||
|
happens during an election? Simple enough...
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
Those are my biggest gripes. There are others, such as language,
|
|||
|
or I've already covered them in my article in FidoNews 811.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is just an effort to influence the voting on a policy over
|
|||
|
which I have no control or say and had no input in writing.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Take this and other articles, posts, and converstaions into
|
|||
|
consideration when you vote. If you vote.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 22 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
COLUMNS
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Henry Clark
|
|||
|
1:124/6120
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Interactive Video -
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I just got back from Supercomm '91 in Houston. It's an
|
|||
|
exhibition of TelCo products ranging from line splicing tools
|
|||
|
to SONET cross connects. I saw very little ISDN and quite a
|
|||
|
lot of 'fiber to the home'. I think you might be interested.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You use a modem, and you have an analog phone system in your
|
|||
|
house. Down at your neighborhood switch box, these analog
|
|||
|
signals are converted to digital signals. This bit rate is
|
|||
|
called the T0 rate; it's about 64 Kbps ( bits per second ).
|
|||
|
ISDN proposes to connect you with 2 T0 digital links plus a 16
|
|||
|
Kbps data link ( the 2T Plus D ).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
After adding some overhead to a T0 signal for diagnostic and
|
|||
|
management purposes, a DS0 format is generated, and this is the
|
|||
|
basic rate for most transmission systems used today. For
|
|||
|
transport purposes, 24 DS0 signals are bundled together to form
|
|||
|
a DS1 signal format. This is the signal passed between your
|
|||
|
neighborhood box to the TelCo Central Office ( that big
|
|||
|
building with no windows ! ).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bundling 28 DS1s together ( with more overhead channels ) gives
|
|||
|
you a DS3 rate, and that is trunk level signal that is passed
|
|||
|
between major switching stations, large corporations and long
|
|||
|
distance phone companies.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Backtracking a little, DS0 is 64 Kbps, DS1 is 1.5 Mbps ( million
|
|||
|
bits per second ) and DS3 is 45 Mbps. A new international
|
|||
|
standard called SONET provides a basic signal level called
|
|||
|
STS-1 and this is a 50 Mbps. While the DSx formats are
|
|||
|
asynchronous signals, the STS-1 is a synchronous signal. Given
|
|||
|
the base of DS3 equipment, there are several vendors of DS3 to
|
|||
|
STS-1 conversion units.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Continuing with ever faster rates, SONET defines the OC-3 rate
|
|||
|
( 3 STS-1 signals ) for 150 Mbps. OC stands for Optical
|
|||
|
Circuit. And of course there is the OC-12, OC-24 and OC-48
|
|||
|
rates; OC-48 being 2.4 Gigabits per second. Now lets put all
|
|||
|
this in perspective.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The fiber optic cable being laid in the ground today will carry
|
|||
|
at a maximum ONE OC-48 signal. For example, the entire Florida
|
|||
|
backbone is carried on 6 fibers. The typical maximum for
|
|||
|
buried fiber is 40 strands. These 40 OC-48s can represent
|
|||
|
almost 1.3 million active phone calls, or 1920 full motion
|
|||
|
digital video signals. Clearly an insufficient amount of
|
|||
|
bandwidth to put two-way video into every home. Not enough,
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 23 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
even if the bandwidth is increased by 1000 times.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are currently three types of digital video transmission
|
|||
|
formats, with different compression algorithms, even at the
|
|||
|
same rate. The most common, highest quality is the 45 Mbps or
|
|||
|
DS3 rate. The coder/decoder ( codex is analogous to modem ) is
|
|||
|
the least expensive, but as we can see from the above DS3
|
|||
|
descriptions, the transport bandwidth is the most expensive.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The least used is 1.5 Mbps. Growing fast for commercial usage
|
|||
|
in video conferencing is the dual 56 kbps format. While the
|
|||
|
codex units are very expensive, the transport media is simply
|
|||
|
two phone lines. The problem with this format is that it only
|
|||
|
operates at about 3 frames per second. ( Broadcast quality is
|
|||
|
33 Fps. ) This low quality video is unsuitable for most uses.
|
|||
|
The accepted theory is that the codex for good quality dual T0
|
|||
|
video is five years away.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Why do I mention video ? Well, what else is there ? We have
|
|||
|
voice and data. You have probably transferred a GIF or a FLI,
|
|||
|
which are the still and animated equivalents of photographs.
|
|||
|
Video is the last frontier for image transmission for this
|
|||
|
decade, anyway.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Another reason to mention video transmission is the television
|
|||
|
cable industry, which is now beginning to DIE. You've heard of
|
|||
|
junk bonds. Cable companies were heavily financed by junk
|
|||
|
bonds, and now it's time for them to start paying up. As a
|
|||
|
result, you see service prices rising, and growing complaints
|
|||
|
from consumers. The accepted theory is that TelCos will have
|
|||
|
permission to offer video in five years.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Given the current technology, this permission will prove nearly
|
|||
|
useless in the implementation of interactive video. Broadcast
|
|||
|
video, maybe, but interactive only in local areas. Any
|
|||
|
improvements in video compression will be too expensive for the
|
|||
|
home owner. Next time I'll outline the different methods in use
|
|||
|
today for interactive television.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 24 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
LATEST VERSIONS
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Latest Software Versions
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
MS-DOS Systems
|
|||
|
--------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Software
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
DMG 2.93 Phoenix 1.3 TAG 2.5g
|
|||
|
Fido 12s+ QuickBBS 2.66 TBBS 2.1
|
|||
|
GSBBS 3.02 RBBS 17.3B TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
|||
|
Lynx 1.30 RBBSmail 17.3B Telegard 2.5
|
|||
|
Kitten 2.16 RemoteAccess 1.00* TPBoard 6.1
|
|||
|
Maximus 1.02 SLBBS 1.77A Wildcat! 2.55
|
|||
|
Opus 1.14+ Socrates 1.10 WWIV 4.12
|
|||
|
PCBoard 14.5 XBBS 1.15
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Network Node List Other
|
|||
|
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm 2.40 EditNL 4.00 ARC 7.0
|
|||
|
D'Bridge 1.30 MakeNL 2.31 ARCAsim 2.30
|
|||
|
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.07
|
|||
|
FrontDoor 1.99c Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
|
|||
|
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.14 Crossnet v1.5
|
|||
|
SEAdog 4.60* XlatList 2.90 DOMAIN 1.42
|
|||
|
TIMS 1.0(Mod8) XlaxDiff 2.35 EMM 2.02
|
|||
|
XlaxNode 2.35 4Dog/4DMatrix 1.18
|
|||
|
Gmail 2.05
|
|||
|
GROUP 2.16
|
|||
|
GUS 1.30
|
|||
|
HeadEdit 1.15
|
|||
|
InterPCB 1.31
|
|||
|
LHARC 2.10
|
|||
|
MSG 4.1
|
|||
|
MSGED 2.06
|
|||
|
MSGTOSS 1.3
|
|||
|
Oliver 1.0a
|
|||
|
PK[UN]ZIP 1.20
|
|||
|
QM 1.0
|
|||
|
QSORT 4.03
|
|||
|
Sirius 1.0x
|
|||
|
SLMAIL 1.36
|
|||
|
StarLink 1.01
|
|||
|
TagMail 2.41
|
|||
|
TCOMMail 2.2
|
|||
|
Telemail 1.27
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 25 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
TMail 1.15
|
|||
|
TPBNetEd 3.2
|
|||
|
TosScan 1.00
|
|||
|
UFGATE 1.03
|
|||
|
XRS 4.10*
|
|||
|
XST 2.2
|
|||
|
ZmailH 1.14
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
OS/2 Systems
|
|||
|
------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Maximus-CBCS 1.02 BinkleyTerm 2.40 Parselst 1.32
|
|||
|
ConfMail 4.00
|
|||
|
EchoStat 6.0
|
|||
|
oMMM 1.52
|
|||
|
Omail 3.1
|
|||
|
MsgEd 2.06
|
|||
|
MsgLink 1.0C
|
|||
|
MsgNum 4.14
|
|||
|
LH2 0.50
|
|||
|
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02
|
|||
|
ARC2 6.00
|
|||
|
PolyXARC 2.00
|
|||
|
Qsort 2.1
|
|||
|
Raid 1.0
|
|||
|
Remapper 1.2
|
|||
|
Tick 2.0
|
|||
|
VPurge 2.07
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Xenix/Unix
|
|||
|
----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm 2.30b Unzip 3.10
|
|||
|
ARC 5.21
|
|||
|
ParseLst 1.30b
|
|||
|
ConfMail 3.31b
|
|||
|
Ommm 1.40b
|
|||
|
Msged 1.99b
|
|||
|
Zoo 2.01
|
|||
|
C-Lharc 1.00
|
|||
|
Omail 1.00b
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 26 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Apple II
|
|||
|
----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
GBBS Pro 2.1 Fruity Dog 1.0 ShrinkIt 3.2
|
|||
|
DDBBS + 4.0 ShrinkIt GS 1.04
|
|||
|
deARC2e 2.1
|
|||
|
ProSel 8.65
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Apple CP/M
|
|||
|
----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Daisy v2j Daisy Mailer 0.38 Nodecomp 0.37
|
|||
|
MsgUtil 2.5
|
|||
|
PackUser v4
|
|||
|
Filer v2-D
|
|||
|
UNARC.COM 1.20
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Macintosh
|
|||
|
---------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Red Ryder Host 2.1 Tabby 2.2 MacArc 0.04
|
|||
|
Mansion 7.15 Copernicus 1.0 ArcMac 1.3
|
|||
|
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 LHArc 0.33
|
|||
|
Hermes 1.01 StuffIt Classic 1.6
|
|||
|
FBBS 0.91 Compactor 1.21
|
|||
|
TImport 1.92
|
|||
|
TExport 1.92
|
|||
|
Timestamp 1.6
|
|||
|
Tset 1.3
|
|||
|
Import 3.2
|
|||
|
Export 3.21
|
|||
|
Sundial 3.2
|
|||
|
PreStamp 3.2
|
|||
|
OriginatorII 2.0
|
|||
|
AreaFix 1.6
|
|||
|
Mantissa 3.21
|
|||
|
Zenith 1.5
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 27 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Eventmeister 1.0
|
|||
|
TSort 1.0
|
|||
|
Mehitable 2.0
|
|||
|
UNZIP 1.02c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Amiga
|
|||
|
-----
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paragon 2.082+ BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
|
|||
|
TransAmiga 1.05 TrapDoor 1.50 AReceipt 1.5
|
|||
|
WelMat 0.42 booz 1.01
|
|||
|
ConfMail 1.10
|
|||
|
ChameleonEdit 0.10
|
|||
|
ElectricHerald1.66
|
|||
|
Lharc 1.30
|
|||
|
MessageFilter 1.52
|
|||
|
oMMM 1.49b
|
|||
|
ParseLst 1.30
|
|||
|
PkAX 1.00
|
|||
|
PK[UN]ZIP 1.01
|
|||
|
PolyxAmy 2.02
|
|||
|
RMB 1.30
|
|||
|
RoboWriter 1.02
|
|||
|
Skyparse 2.30
|
|||
|
TrapList 1.12
|
|||
|
Yuck! 1.61
|
|||
|
Zippy (Unzip) 1.25
|
|||
|
Zoo 2.01
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Atari ST/TT
|
|||
|
-----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bulletin Board Network Node List
|
|||
|
Software Version Mailer Version Utilities Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FIDOdoor/ST 2.12* BinkleyTerm 2.40l* ParseList 1.30
|
|||
|
QuickBBS/ST 1.02 The BOX 1.20 Xlist 1.12
|
|||
|
Pandora BBS 2.41c EchoFix 1.20
|
|||
|
GS Point 0.61 sTICk/Hatch 5.10*
|
|||
|
LED ST 1.00
|
|||
|
MSGED 1.96S
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Archiver Msg Format Other
|
|||
|
Utilities Version Converters Version Utilities Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 28 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LHARC 0.60 TB2BINK 1.00 ConfMail 4.03
|
|||
|
ARC 6.02 BINK2TB 1.00 ComScan 1.02
|
|||
|
PKUNZIP 1.10 FiFo 2.1j* Import 1.14
|
|||
|
OMMM 1.40
|
|||
|
Pack 1.00
|
|||
|
FastPack 1.20
|
|||
|
FDsysgen 2.16
|
|||
|
FDrenum 2.10
|
|||
|
Trenum 0.10
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Archimedes
|
|||
|
----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Mailers Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ARCbbs 1.44 BinkleyTerm 2.03 Unzip 2.1TH
|
|||
|
ARC 1.03
|
|||
|
!Spark 2.00d
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ParseLst 1.30
|
|||
|
BatchPacker 1.00
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
|||
|
* 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 8-13 Page 29 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
NOTICES
|
|||
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Interrupt Stack
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
12 May 1991
|
|||
|
Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
|
|||
|
second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
15 Aug 1991
|
|||
|
5th annual Z1 Fido Convention - FidoCon '91 "A New Beginning"
|
|||
|
Sheraton Denver West August 15 through August 18 1991.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8 Sep 1991
|
|||
|
25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7 Oct 1991
|
|||
|
Area code 415 fragments. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
|
|||
|
will begin using area code 510. This includes Oakland,
|
|||
|
Concord, Berkeley and Hayward. San Francisco, San Mateo,
|
|||
|
Marin, parts of Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
|
|||
|
Islands will retain area code 415.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 Feb 1992
|
|||
|
Area code 213 fragments. Western, coastal, southern and
|
|||
|
eastern portions of Los Angeles County will begin using area
|
|||
|
code 310. This includes Los Angeles International Airport,
|
|||
|
West Los Angeles, San Pedro and Whittier. Downtown Los
|
|||
|
Angeles and surrounding communities (such as Hollywood and
|
|||
|
Montebello) will retain area code 213.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 Dec 1993
|
|||
|
Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5 Jun 1997
|
|||
|
David Dodell's 40th Birthday
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
|||
|
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Rapp
|
|||
|
FidoNet 1:106/12
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NASA Space Shuttle Press Kit
|
|||
|
----------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-13 Page 30 1 Apr 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is just a notice to everyone and anyone that USS Vulcanix,
|
|||
|
a BBS specializing in Space & Astronomy, Star Trek, and Science
|
|||
|
Fiction has the latest NASA Shuttle Press Kit available for
|
|||
|
FREQ (File REQuest).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What is the Shuttle Press Kit? Well, it's a long ASCII text
|
|||
|
file containing almost anything you'd want to know about a
|
|||
|
shuttle flight. Here's a portion of the table of contents for
|
|||
|
SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION STS-37 (April 1991):
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES
|
|||
|
VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD WEIGHTS
|
|||
|
TRAJECTORY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
|
|||
|
GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY
|
|||
|
GREAT OBSERVATORIES
|
|||
|
PROTEIN CRYSTAL GROWTH EXPERIMENT
|
|||
|
SHUTTLE AMATEUR RADIO EXPERIMENT
|
|||
|
ADVANCED SHUTTLE GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS
|
|||
|
RADIATION MONITORING EQUIPMENT-III
|
|||
|
STS-37 CREW BIOGRAPHIES
|
|||
|
STS-37 MISSION MANAGEMENT
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The file contains some very interesting information, and anyone
|
|||
|
who likes the shuttle will love it. Example: It has a
|
|||
|
day-by-day listing of what happens each day. The magic filename
|
|||
|
to FREQ from my system is STSKIT. This will send you the file
|
|||
|
STS37KIT.ZIP, and it's about 25,000 bytes (zipped).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hope you like it!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
/*/-=[Michael Rapp]=-/*/
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|