informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido1031.nws

2013 lines
95 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.31 (02-Aug-1993)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | |
| FidoNet BBS community | Published by: |
| _ | |
| / \ | "FidoNews" BBS |
| /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: |
| | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet addresses: |
| |
| Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com |
| Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) |
| editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies and other boring but important details, |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 2
Subject: volume 10 issue 19................................. 2
UK Geonetting............................................... 4
Moderator Guides Recommended................................ 5
How NOT to incorporate a Fidonet Network.................... 6
Observations on Moderator Behavior.......................... 9
Strike One! Whaddya mean I'm OUT?.......................... 10
Nodelist Updater 2.00 released!............................. 11
ARJ vs ZIP, the Real Story?................................. 13
Is FidoNet Really This Bad?................................. 14
Seen It all?................................................ 15
The Geographical Joke....................................... 15
Correction Of Previous Article.............................. 17
The Region 25 IGate......................................... 19
Regionalization - why we need it............................ 19
Why the Confusion in Region 18 and Elsewhere?............... 20
Free Spirit Network......................................... 24
The definative archiver test, Part 1........................ 26
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 2 02 Aug 1993
MARANATHA! NET INTERNATIONAL................................ 28
SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!......................................... 29
Re: ARJ vs ZIP, The Faceoff................................. 33
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 35
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
A large issue this week, with 18 articles. Many of them are
even worth reading. (Did I really say that?).
Normally we do not comment on articles, but perhaps this week
the first article bears a comment. We do not write the pieces
in Fidonews. Nor do we edit them, unless specifically asked.
If that is the case, and we do edit, we never print the revised
article without the original author seeing it and okaying the
changes. About the only time this applies is when we receive an
article from a non-english speaker, and are asked to clean it
up.
Secondly, we cannot verify every article that is sent in. We
are two sysops sitting in our home; we do not have an
international team of reporters we can send out to verify the
accuracy of each article. We can, however, print responses to
articles. That we do.
What else is new? Well, we have a new art gallery opening in
the neighbourhood, and have been busting butt helping to get it
ready. As the site was a wreck of a crack-house about a dozen
weeks ago, the amount of work has been rather daunting. Max
will be one of the featured painters, so if any of you happen to
be in the Kitchener, Ontario, downtown ...
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Subject: volume 10 issue 19
From: Ron Dwight
The following, although a message to you may also be published
in FidoNews. The choice is yours, but if it is published, you
will publish it UNALTERED (except for reformatting) and credit
it to me on 2:220/22, aka 2:2/0. You see anything I write, I
stand by, a quality severly lacking in today's society.
Hi Folks,
In last Vol 10, 19 FidoNews, there was an article:-
region25 ZC2 does it again
..... Stuff deleted....
It means that many of us may perhaps lose our node numbers,
there is no path of appeal left to us, since now ZC2 has decided
in his infinite wisdom to become RC25 as well. Lunacy is an
understatement, one sysop has already bee expelled from Fidonet
because he tried to get an injunction to stop this madness. I
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 3 02 Aug 1993
ask does Fidonet want to grow and encourage Human communication
or does it want to shrink into the dark ages.
.... Stuff delete....
The rest of the article is not really relevant,
although it certainly misrepresents what was actually written.
I am concerned about the following matters:
1) The paragraph quoted above contains certifiable, provable
LIES. NO-one has been excommunicated from zone 2 for attempting
to file an injunction. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as
an agreement has been reached with the SysOp who was attempting
to file an injunction. The injunction was refused by the court
and the SysOp has indicated that he will no longer be seeking
any court order against any FidoNet SysOp.
2) What you have printed here is LIBELOUS, to me as well as
others.
3) How can you possibly allow yourselves to print this garbage
and allow it to be done anonymously? You have created a
newspaper in which personal attacks, of virtually unlimited
outrageousness are allowed without the author even having to
take responsibility for his actions. Do you seriously believe
this is a reasonable way for a newspaper publisher and Editors
to behave? Hiding behind "We publish everything" will earn you
no points at all, as it is YOU who are responsible.
4) In the past I have enjoyed reading FidoNews for it's
technical articles and information from around the FidoSpace.
Today it has become nothing but a rumour mill, totally lacking
in ethical control and lacking the qualities which any
publication should strive to achieve, TRUTH & HONESTY. This is
YOUR job as editors an Tom's as publisher.
I suggest that you remove yourselves from the
editorship of FidoNews and pass it over to someone with the
moral fibre to do the job right. Someone who will DEMAND that
articles are published by SysOps who identify themselves and
have to take responsibility for the information they want
published.
You have managed, in a few short weeks, to turn the
"snooze" into the "sleaze". I am disgusted and you should be
ashamed.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 4 02 Aug 1993
UK Geonetting
From: Paul Carroll, 2:250/412
Many thanks for publishing my previous article in the FidoNews. I
have been contacted by ZC2 Dwight who advises me that I am wrong in
several respects and insists that I apologise to whoever I have
mislead. An XAB complaint is threatened.
1. Mr Dwight says that I imply collaboration or collusion between
himself in respect of the enforced geonetting of the UK. He denies
this collaboration, which I accept: however, his inference that I
imply collusion is incorrect.
2. The threatened court injunction against RC25 appears not to have
been served.
3. Peter Burnett did not in fact resign as RC25: he was replaced by
ZC Dwight in order to protect him from the injunction referred to
above, and ZC Dwight has netmailed me to this effect. Mr Burnett will
resume his RC25 duties with effect from NODELIST.211.
4. I stated that a sysop was excised from the nodelist by RC25. The
sysop in question claimed in several messages that he was about to be
excised, but he was not in fact removed from the nodelist.
If anyone has been mislead by my article, I apologise. I wish to
retain my Fido node number, but I certainly won't grovel for it.
Isn't it sad, however, that a supposedly amateur organisation created
for the purposes of friendship should have sunk to levels such as
this ..... threatened court injunctions, accusations of libel and
lying .....
I'm a very ordinary sysop here in the UK, who has never until now
been involved in Fido Politics. I doubt I ever will again following
this "brush with the law", but I'd like to bet that I'm not alone out
here ......
Here's a quote from a *very* respected sysop here in the UK which
perfectly echoes my sentiments
-----------Quote begins---------------------------------------
> Fidonet is no longer a network where people work together
> to help each other it is a place where those in charge now
> like to show they are in power.
-----------Quote ends-----------------------------------------
Can I suggest that Messrs Dwight and Burnett now submit articles to
yourselves to bring the whole question of UK Geonetting to the
attention of the Fido world at large? I'm sure they have nothing to
fear by doing so.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 5 02 Aug 1993
Moderator Guides Recommended
By Kent Anderson
Former Moderator, now Co-Moderator, SHAREWRE 1:382/91
During an approximately two year period of moderating the
SHAREWRE echo, I formed some fairly strong opinions as to what
constituted proper behavior for Moderators. Despite my trying
hard to be tactful, and as gentle as possible in enforcing the
rules, there was always an element of users who felt I was
overbearing, and who took any rule enforcement as invasive of
their rights.
I resigned due to burnout because of this expressed opinion,
and, when I became Co_moderator, resolved to try and formulate a
VOLUNTARY set of guidelines to which Moderators might subscribe,
if they agreed with them. I proposed to do this through online
contact among Moderators, Sysops, and interested members of the
Fidonet "C" structure. Wherever I tried to open this up through
contact with echo Moderators, I met resistance on the grounds
that the subject would attract the control freaks who want an
appeals process which could remove or discipline Moderators. In
my opinion, the present system works very well in about ninety
eight percent of the echoes on the backbone, and I have no
desire whatever to change it.
The system I propose would work in a way similar to the Better
Business Burea, which prescribes certain business behavior, and
the Moderator, if he subscribed, would so announce in the
Echolist. This would provide some idea for the potential user
what s/he might expect as treatment from the Moderator of an
echo, and also make it very clear that rules within those
guidelines would be enforced.
In a separate article, entitled Moderator behavior, I have
outlined my observations on Moderating, and this might serve as
a beginning guide for the proposed topic. The questions I pose
to all of you are:
1. Is the idea feasible?
2. Where might I take it to reach the group mentioned?
Contact me by netmail at 1:382/91.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 6 02 Aug 1993
How NOT to incorporate a Fidonet Network.
By Anonymous (After you read it, you will know why) Net 343
So your NC wants to form a non-profit organization to run your
network? NET 343 tried it last year. The results have been 2 new NC's
in 2 months, a new NC next month, turmoil, censorship of the Net343
sysop echo, and alleged fraud.
Last summer the NC of NET 343 said he was going to form a non-profit
organization <NPO> in order to save on taxes <each node pays 5
dollars a month for the echomail feed>. It seem the net had a surplus
on those fees, and the NC didn't want be responsible for taking care
of the taxes on it.
The NC at the time, LeRoy DeVries, said that before the NPO was
formed he would let the net sysops look at and discuss the Articles
of Incorporation, and the bylaws. THIS WAS NEVER DONE! Not only that
but a federal NPO or 501c3 which would have saved tax liabilities was
not filed but a state NPO was filed. Washington state does not have a
state income tax.
Suddenly during the, almost monthly, social gathering we call the
"Net Meeting", LeRoy DeVries announced the NPO had been founded and
the bylaws accepted and officers appointed without so much as one
word from the documents being submitted to the sysops it would
govern. These docs were not even presented at the meeting for perusal.
Well couple of weeks passed, and something about a BOD echo started
to crop up in the local NET343 sysop echo. It was a private Board of
Directors (BOD) echo. One of the BOD members didn't like what was
happening at the BOD meetings and started to post about it in the
NET343 echo. When queried about what was happening at the BOD
meetings, we were told it needed to be secret by request.
The sysops of Net 343 didn't even know the BOD existed! And now it
was holding secret meetings! What was going on that was so secret!?!?
Finally the one BOD member was given permission to cross post the
capture file of the BOD echo, and the feces hit the proverbial fan.
It turns out that the NC appointed himself President of the BOD, and
appointed the HUBS as VP, Treasurer, and officers. The first things
the BOD did were:
1. LeRoy DeVries sold his own used hard drive to the Corporation,
without any bids or discussion in the net.
2. It was announced that the BOD had decided to start buying its
echomail and file feed from LeRoy DeVries, for $225.00 per month, who
had decided to become the new "backup STAR" to Dave James.
Wait you say. The President of the BOD sold his hard drive to the
Corporation, isn't that a conflict of interest? Ah, but the Article
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 7 02 Aug 1993
of Incorporation specifically allow this. Many if not most NPO's try
to avoid conflict of interests concerning the directors. Lesser
Seattle Opera Corporation <LSOC> institutionalized it.
Concerning decision 2: NET343 sysops were told the reason actions and
discussions were secret were because LeRoy DeVries, along with Dave
James of Western STAR notoriety, had decided that LeRoy DeVries would
become the "backup" for the Western STAR. The net was informed the
change in feed had already been instituted, and the money was
destined for LeRoy DeVries for supplying the new feed.
LeRoy DeVries posted that Dave James had requested it not be revealed
that he was going down "soon" and didn't want that information out.
At that time the sysop were told that the outside feed of the NET343
echo to other nets had been cut to accomplish this and we were
forbidden to reveal it.
As of today Dave James has not gone down as the Western STAR.
Sysops in NET 343 reacted with expected outrage. LeRoy DeVries quit
as NC, appointed Sue Crocker the new NC, he then quit as President of
LSOC. Sue was put on the BOD of LSOC.
It then turned out, after the sysops requested it, that NET 343 could
obtain a full echomail feed from the Region Hub in Tacoma. AND IT WAS
A LOCAL CALL! The net could not only save the long distance charges
to the Western STAR, but would not have to give $225.00 a month to
the new "backup" STAR.
Before it was decided to switch to the Tacoma feed, LeRoy DeVries
announced the dissolution of the "backup" STAR idea.
Two months passed and Christmas was approaching. The newly appointed
NC, Sue Crocker announced she was quitting the NC position as of the
1st of Jan 1993, would quit Fidonet and also quit running a bbs. She
called for an vote of the Net sysops for the next NC. Two weeks was
given as the time frame. Sue said to send your vote to her with a
password. Nominations were accepted and three sysops were nominated,
Mark Marean, Ralph Sims, and Dave Ball. A short time later Dave Ball
was going to withdraw because his machine crashed and he could not
afford another one. This was announced in the sysop echo. Sysops
started to change their votes because of this, then when Dave Ball
announced someone had loaned him a machine, Sue extended the vote for
2 weeks, so the votes could be changed again. (Dave Ball was one of
the old farts in this area, one of the BOD members, Terry Broyles,
actually announced he would quit as our Tacoma feed if Dave wasn't
elected!)
When the votes results were posted there were 53 votes counted but
only 42 passwords posted! When asked about the discrepancy, Sue said
it wouldn't have made a difference. She has never posted an
accounting of the election.
When Dave Ball took over the first thing he did, was ban any
discussion of the LSOC BOD until April 1st, censor any discussion of
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 8 02 Aug 1993
gay issues, (why he did this was beyond most since it concerned
threats by a user on a bbs and what should be done about it), and ban
any discussions about NC's. His reason for banning discussion on the
BOD was he needed some time to "evaluate" the issue. when quizzed how
banning the subject would help him, he was quiet.
So now it is January. There hasn't been a BOD meeting in over 2
months. Even if there were the sysops don't even know if we can
attend. When the BOD is criticized and suggestion are made to change
it, the sysops are told, "you pay your 5 bucks a month, and you are
getting your feed, then what is the problem? You should be
satisfied." A sentiment shared by the current NC, Dave Ball.
The net is in turmoil, censorship is rampant, and we haven't had a
treasury report like we were promised in 4 weeks.
Now it is July, and we hadn't had a net meeting or LSOC meeting since
Feb 20th. It turns out the Treasurer that was elected at the Feb 20th
meeting never did anything, so the LSOC elected a new one.
EXCEPT FOR ONE IMPORTANT THING....they forgot to remove the old one,
and the old one didn't resign. When it was pointed out that the
Treasurer election may be illegal, they merely say the old Treasurer
never assumed his duties.
And now it is pointed out that LSOC didn't file a tax return for
1992. LeRoy DeVries has said it was because the LSOC accounts were
never switched over from his original network accounts.
But then the question is asked....Well then who bought the hard drive
and paid the $225.00 a month to LeRoy DeVries back at the end of last
year?
Well it could only be one person.....LeRoy DeVries bought his own
hard drive from the network funds, purportedly for the network,
without asking the net. He asked the LSOC Board of Directors, who had
absolutely no control over LeRoy DeVries accounts, for this approval.
LeRoy also paid for the $225.00 a month out of the network account to
himself on approval from LSOC BOD. Again the LSOC BOD had no
authority to spend that money. It should have been net decision, not
a Corporation decision.
These two items taken together show what? For what reason did LeRoy
DeVries spend money out of the network account and put it behind the
approval of Lesser Seattle Opera Corp?
The irony of all this is that most of it could have been prevented if
LeRoy DeVries and the BOD had been open and communicated the proposed
AOI and bylaws, and their desires for the feed change and hard drive
needs. If they had just used the communications that the electronic
medium provides Net 343 might have avoided this entire debacle!
Please understand this is not about NET343, it is about Lesser
Seattle Opera Corp, a totally different entity. LSOC is only a
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 9 02 Aug 1993
provider of echomail and files. The LSOC does not run the net.
Observations on Moderator Behavior
Kent Anderson
Former Moderator, now Co-Moderator, SHAREWRE 1:382/91
This item is supplemental to the article titled Moderator Guidelines,
and is a summary of my observations after nearly two years of
moderating:
One can become a Moderator in an eyeblink. But, it takes a long
period of time to become a good moderator, and by that, I mean a
reasonable Moderator, and one who is accepted by the participants of
his/her echo.
IMHO, the immediate reaction of most who are appointed or elected to
the position of Moderator is to feel that the prime thrust is
ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES. While this is most certainly true in a
sense, the primary goal of a Moderator is to create, or keep going, a
smoothly running organization which serves the purposes for which it
is intended and at the same time, allows its users to _enjoy_ the
benefits of it.
It takes a long time to learn to be reasonable in the approach to
"off-topic" stuff, and not jump at the first hint of such. The
approach should eventually become to look at whether a message is
topic related (by any stretch of imagination); whether it is of
interest and helpful to all, and whether it is likely to continue to
the point that it annoys others. Patience is the name of the game,
and such messages will bear watching for a few days before gently
asking that a particular thread be ended.
Minor altercations among users should be ignored unless they turn
into personal attacks and vituperation. Then they must be dealt with
quickly and firmly.
The Moderator must not be easily upset by mistakes - particularly
when committed by users new to echomail, or to the conference.
Admonishments should take the form of gentle reminders about the
rules. On the other hand, some people continue to make the same
mistakes after reminders, and these cannot be taken lightly, but must
be dealt with in the least harsh manner possible.
It is most important to be certain that YOU adhere to your own rules
100% of the time. If you expect them to be important to others, it
behooves you to see to it that they are important to you.
One must always keep in mind that this is a hobby manned by unpaid
volunteers, and be appreciative of the opportunities it provides. The
Moderator should, to the maximum extent of his/her ability, control
the amount of expense and overhead to the mail distribution system by
controlling overquoting and idle chit chat in the echo. International
echos carry messages all over the world at no small expense overall,
and the volunteers gladly meet it within reason. There is no reason,
however, to let the bandwidth and noise level get out of hand at
their expense.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 10 02 Aug 1993
Be available to your participants, preferably by netmail or voice,
but keep discussion of the rules and Moderator policy out of the echo
where it may lead to argumentative or even flame type messages, to
the disruption of the functions of the conference.
Last but not least, the Moderator must be able to control his/her
annoyance level. Let the little stuff slide off your back like water
off a duck, and remember you can't please all of 'em all the time. As
it has been well said:
Do not be annoying. Do not be too easily annoyed.
The learning experience in this field never really ends. Each day,
one should pick up another idea or two on how to keep things running
smoothly without getting in the way of the business of the echo.
SOUNDS real simple, huh!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strike One! Whaddya mean I'm OUT?
From: Mark Yoder 1:264/177.5
Recently, I was more than slightly surprised when that fateful
netmail appeared on my system. I had been forcably removed from the
Front Door Support Echo. As a rather passive member of the echo, I
was a frequent "topic lurker" but rarely posted messages.
One fateful night in late June, I made the mistake of replying to
the wrong thread which concerned the pricing of the commercial
version of Front Door. I had observed other similar posts, on
occasion, and therefore did not fear or expect any kind of negative
response from any of the moderators.
On the 3rd of July, I received a note, carboned to my NC and NEC
from Mr. Bruce Bodger <haven't we seen his name here recently?>
stating that I had "ignored warnings", "been warned too many times",
and that I was to be cut from the distribution of FDECHO. I
immediately responded to Mr. Bodger via direct crash netmail, and
asked for some type of clarification as to what warnings I had been
issued, and why they had never gotten to me. I apologized for
whatever wrong doing I had committed and questioned why I was the
only individual to be banned for straying to the topic of price.
The truth was that there were *never* any such warnings to me. I
asked Mr. Bodger on four occasions, via netmail, for some kind of
reason or clarification, and if nothing else, to at least send a
response that would indicate that the message was received and
ignored. Nothing.
I find it somewhat amusing that on the same weekend that another
user points out Mr. Bodger's seeming eagerness to be the RA
software police, I receive a response from Mr. Bodger stating that
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 11 02 Aug 1993
"I think it would serve your own interests much better to say,
'I realize what I did wrong and will try not to do it again'
rather than continually telling me how many other people are
equally as guilty as you are."
Mr. Bodger goes on to say that "You may access the echo again now
by simply writing a NetMail to me that you will strive not to repeat
your past mistakes."
Thanks, Bruce, but I apologized for what I did, when it became
aparent that I *had* done something wrong. If a simple mistake is
treated with such harshness, not to mention adjunct inequality, I'm
not sure that I want to be a citizen in the "Kingdom."
It is a shame that one marginal apple can cause vinegar out of an
otherwise tremendous bushel of apples that are so bountiful in Fido.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nodelist Updater 2.00 released!
By Roland van der Put, 2:285/320
Do you still have to use a large batch file to process your
difference files and/or new nodelists? There's no need any more,
because now there's a new way -- now there's Nodelist Updater!
I started working on Nodelist Updater nearly two years ago. After
releasing several versions, people started to become really
enthusiastic. The result is the current 2.00 release of Nodelist
Updater. This release contains everything you want to do, and maybe
even more.
With NU, you don't need to use a batch file for all your nodelists
any more. You can easily configure Nodelist Updater by using the
familiar full-screen setup program. NU's setup program also
supports a mouse and will allow you to define up to 100 nodelists.
After you've entered all information, you can simply run Nodelist
Updater by executing the main program. Nodelist Updater will take
care of all the rest. All nodelists will (if available) be updated
within one single session.
Nodelist Updater will decompress the difference files and/or
nodelists automatically. It detects the compression format and
executes the correct decompression program. So, if your uplink
changes the compression format for a file, then Nodelist Updater
will take care of it. If more difference files are found for a
nodelist, then all of them will be processed.
If you are also interested in statistics about your nodelists, then
the answer is simple. Just enter a filename in the setup program,
and Nodelist Updater will fill the file with useful information.
If you want to compress and store the difference, nodelists and/or
statistics files, then you can do so with Nodelist Updater.
Nodelist Updater is also able to add the description of these files
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 12 02 Aug 1993
to the Files.Bbs files or the RA 2.0 filebase. It's possible to let
Nodelist Updater update your mailer's magic names for these files.
And another feature is that you can keep the latest 5, 10 or any
amount of nodelists, difference files or statistics files on your
hard disk. Nodelist Updater will take care of deleting the files
you don't want to keep.
To finish this short overview, I should tell you that Nodelist
Updater can execute any nodelist compilers (for your mailer,
tracker, BBS, mail reader etc.). Nodelist Updater is DESQview and
4DOS aware and can also swap to disk, extended, EMS or XMS memory,
so you'll have no memory problems.
Nodelist Updater has been registered and tested by dozens of people
all over the (FTN)world so far. The features I have mentioned are
not the only ones, there are more.
To summarize: Nodelist Updater can do everything you want and maybe
even more. There's no simpler and more reliable way
to update and compile your new nodelist[s] each week!
To get the latest version of Nodelist Updater, you only need to file
request the magic name 'NU' at one of the following systems:
The Netherlands: 2:285/320 (Roland van der Put)
[online from 18:00-05:30 UTC+2]
2:285/301 (Ronald Bras)
2:285/307 (Marco Kraaijeveld)
Germany : 2:242/210 (Boris Huertgen)
United Kingdom : 2:251/22 (Terence Milbourn)
Sweden : 2:204/465 (Anders Naslund)
Spain : 2:344/7 (Juan J. Achutegui)
[online from 23:00-07:00 UTC+2]
Belgium : 2:292/403 & 404 (Patrick Thijs)
Australia : 3:635/537 (PT Kao)
Denmark : 2:230/64 & 88 (Richard Hansen)
Finland : 2:221/12 (Thomas Raehalme)
All others : 2:285/320 (Roland van der Put)
[online from 18:00-05:30 UTC+2]
The filesize is about 100 kb. Nodelist Updater is also distributed
through various file networks (like RANet).
I hope you'll enjoy this new version!
[Thanks to Terence for the translation to real English...]
Greetings,
Roland
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 13 02 Aug 1993
ARJ vs ZIP, the Real Story?
By Clay Tinsley, 1:124/5125
Real Life Comparisons of ARJ and PkZip
In FidoNews 29, Scott Miller (1:123/416) submitted an article comparing
ARJ 2.41 and PkZip 2.04g. While I certainly appreciate Scott sharing
his results with us, I must point out a "real world" situation that
Scott has apparently avoided or otherwise missed.
SM> ... and the Unreal Graphics demo, (Thanks to Future Crew, for this
SM> really fine and BIG demo, which I am proud to use in this test.)
SM> which is a bit over 2 megabytes in size.
It seems odd to me that you chose a 2MB graphics file for the test.
Graphic files typically don't compress well. Besides, who keeps 100's
of megs of 2MB graphic files on their BBS, anyway?
SM> compression levels, ARJ with the -M1 and -JM flags, and PKZIP with
SM> the -EX flag.
I've done the same in my tests.. but I didn't bother to time them.
Both archivers are pretty slow when in maximum compression mode,
however PkZip seemed faster in my tests. Compression seemed to be the
main point, anyway.
SM> As far as file compression, ARJ did better than PKZIP by 1639
SM> bytes, which is a tiny difference, but can make a difference when
SM> you are dealing with hundreds of megabytes, so a little is better
SM> than nothing.
Here's where we really differ. I took some "average" files - some
containing more test files, some more binary files, but most containing
a mix of file types. I selected these files because of their name,
knowing that most people in the BBS world will recognize them. I
picked 22 files for no special reason - I just kept choosing files
until I had a "screenful" to test. I did try and keep the files over
100k, though. What's an "Unreal Graphics Demo", anyway?
These 22 files are just a small cross section of the typical files you
find on a BBS. PkZip is the clear winner in almost every case.
4DOS402D ZIP 232893 4DOS402D ARJ 237629
4DOS402P ZIP 282120 4DOS402P ARJ 283757
4DOS402U ZIP 172865 4DOS402U ARJ 172662
BNKB_256 ZIP 165766 BNKB_256 ARJ 167288
BW300MAX ZIP 314492 BW300MAX ARJ 315455
BWAVE212 ZIP 316985 BWAVE212 ARJ 318751
CLEAN104 ZIP 220818 CLEAN104 ARJ 221270
CQWK100B ZIP 404111 CQWK100B ARJ 407393
MAX200-1 ZIP 301457 MAX200-1 ARJ 301398
MAX200-2 ZIP 162562 MAX200-2 ARJ 162503
MAX200-3 ZIP 136530 MAX200-3 ARJ 136592
MAX200-4 ZIP 284548 MAX200-4 ARJ 288234
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 14 02 Aug 1993
MAX201B ZIP 449745 MAX201B ARJ 451238
NETSC102 ZIP 189271 NETSC102 ARJ 189503
NETSHLD ZIP 139146 NETSHLD ARJ 140136
POINT160 ZIP 182156 POINT160 ARJ 182775
SCANV104 ZIP 205952 SCANV104 ARJ 206738
SQSH_101 ZIP 289277 SQSH_101 ARJ 290708
VIRX28 ZIP 155707 VIRX28 ARJ 157222
22 file(s) 4606401 bytes 22 file(s) 4631252 bytes
This is a difference of 24,851 bytes out of 4.6 meg, or a savings of
about 10k per 2meg of archive, in favor or PkZip. Now =that's= worth
converting for.
While this is great and all, it hasn't even been mentioned what file
type is compressed and decompressed more than any other in Fidonet, day
in and day out - the .PKT mail bundle. It would be unfair to leave
this most popular file type out of the test.
Let's take another sample - I rescanned 500 msgs in POLITICS to a fake
node, and compressed the resulting 955k packet using maximum
compression:
ZIPMAIL ZIP 314833
ARJMAIL ARJ 320505
As you can see, PkZip can save Fidonet many collective dollars each day
though reduced long distance phone bills.
SM> I would just like to say CONGRATULATIONS to the winner ...
Me, too - PkZip. When used in the "real world", it's a better
performer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is FidoNet Really This Bad?
Is FidoNet Really This Bad?
Peter Barney 1:234/56
I read an interesting post this morning in the SYSOP echo. The author
was upset with all the current talk about corrupt FidoNet coordinators
running amok and enforcing their own brand of justice upon their
jurisdiction. He went on to lament the good old days of BBSing. He
recalled an earlier time when bulletin boards were run for fun, as
nothing more than a hobby for the sysop. "Carefree" summed up the
feeling back then, and most BBS's had no real purpose other than to
have fun.
To that person I would like to say:
Look, pal, FidoNet is serious business, and by god, people like you
are only troublemakers. Take your fun and go to Disney Land, because
We FidoNet Sysops *despise* fun on the network. Fun does not mix with
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 15 02 Aug 1993
Serious Fido Responsibilities. Most of us wear suits when we post
messages, and many of us even have briefcases. So if you want to have
fun, get the heck out of FidoNet. No user should have fun without the
consent of their Net Coordinator anyway.
But on the serious side, I too remember those days of carefree BBSing.
And I don't think those days are over yet. Sure, we hear alot of noise
about all the trouble in FidoNet, but the truth is, most regions are
happy, quiet places. Sure, there are a few bad *C's in Fidonet, but
them's the breaks. It's something we're stuck with for now. Although
if I had been in the same position as some of these lynched sysops,
I'd probably have kicked some heads in myself, for satisfaction if
nothing else.
With a medium like the Fidonews to voice their problems, It's really
only the loudest and most pissed-off coordinators and sysops that make
all the noise. (And they usually do.) This tends to blow things way
out of proportion, and it makes the appearance that FidoNet is a
cauldron of bubbling controversy. But like I said, most regions and
networks are at peace, happily posting and reading messages, and
going about their usual Fidonet duties with no problems. Don't get
discouraged by all of this, because really, things aren't as bad as
they seem.
Well, it's a lovely day outside. I can even hear the creek trickling
through the rocks out back. I think I'll get a lemonade, go out back
to the hammock and breath in the fresh air and life. It helps to keep
everything in perspective. Life is still alive out there, and there
are more things under heaven and earth than FidoNet.
Good Morning from Toledo, Ohio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seen It all?
Mark Phillips
The First Step
1:139/540
Last week I had an article in the snooze called "Seen It All", but I
did not include my name or mail address. Just so people don't think I
am hiding from my opinions I have submitted it now!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Geographical Joke
by Rob Hillis
3:632/107@fidonet
The recent shambles in Region 24 and the developing mess in Britain
and Holland have made me appreciate that I am where I am - Zone 3.
Recently in one of our sysop echos, AUST_SYSOP, someone described us
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 16 02 Aug 1993
as the best behaved zone in FidoNet and were it not for the existance
of zones 4, 5 and 6, I'd be inclined to agree. In the year-and-a-bit
that I've been in FidoNet, I've seen several major beefs from plenty
of people in the two largest zones and have on occasion sent the
occasional netmail message to let someone know my feelings on the
subject. (usually a carefully worded netmail message, but occasionally
not)
Net 632 is part of probably the least geographically organized region
in Zone 3 - Region 50 - and I'm happy to be here. Echo mail is free,
people generally get along with each other, mail moves well and has a
tendency to get to it's destination in a relatively decent time frame
and being a member of FidoNet is easy. Utopia? Not quite, but from
my point of view, it's a very pleasant place to be. Our RC, David
Nugent (of BNU fame) is very human and down to earth and has (in my
opinion) the most accurate view of the way things would work best.
There have been a few times when there have been rumblings of
reorganizing the region have been about, but thankfully this has not
happened. While I don't get along with our ZC the best (I've torn
shreds off him in the past about things that I feel very strongly
about and he probably sees me as a bit of a troublemaker), I have to
be thankful that he's not done anything like Ron Dwight has with
Region 24. Though he may seem to be a bit heavy handed and stubborn
at times, he's nowhere near any of the "monster" *C's I've read
about in FidoNews before.
So what's the point of this article? Geographical nets and how they
impede communication and create massive battles between "grunt" sysops
and *C's. If FidoNet were a professional net, I'd be all in favour of
geographical nets - but profession is exactly what FidoNet is not.
It's a social net, and despite this policy 4.7 implements rules to
make sure that social nets do not form. I understand the theory
behind this - the idea is to stop the "elite" regions where nodes can
join only by invitation, but realistically, a few more simple
guidelines should ensure that this does not happen.
I joined net 632 back in August (or thereabouts) last year not long
after starting up my own network. I discussed joining Fido with David
Nugent (then N632C) and ended up lodging my application with him. If
Region 50 were not a little lax with the geographial rules, I may have
ended up with an NC that didn't seem as "human" to me as David did -
being a new node, I was scared of anyone with any "authority".
So what do I want? What do I hope to gain by writing this article?
I'd like to see the geographical component of policy seriously
reconsidered. Non geographical nets work and work well. My opinion
is that the geographical rule should end at the region and that the
region should be left to make up their own mind.
I'd be very interested to hear other people's views on this topic - it
may be a minor detail, but it certainly does have some major effects
on the network.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 17 02 Aug 1993
Correction Of Previous Article
by Denis McMahon @ 2:252/20
I recently wrote an article attacking the actions of ZC2. Whilst I
still believe that ZC2 is not acting in the best interests of
FidoNet in Europe, I feel that it is only fair to correct some
inaccuracies which, due to a large amount of misinformation that was
being generated, appeared in my previous article.
In the remainder of this article, I have included some paragraphs
from the original, with some corrections after those paragraphs
denoted thus: [correction]
(a) ZC2 (who lives in Finland) appointed himself RC28 (The
Netherlands) for several months in direct contravention of Policy 4
section 3.5.
[The above may be inaccurate in that "several weeks" might be more
accurate than "several months".]
(b) ZC2 collaborated in the RC24 "geographisation" where several
nodes were allocated node numbers without warning, a move that,
whether permitted under Policy or not, was it seems somewhat lacking
in planning and consultation.
[I withdraw any suggestion that ZC2 was in any way involved in the
reorganisation of Region 24 prior to the point at which he received
and applied the nodelist update from RC24 which implemented that
reorganisation, and that his involvement at that stage was that
which was technically correct as ZC2.]
(c) ZC2 has found that a Region25 node is guilty of blackmail
(demanding money with menaces) for threatening to take legal action
to prevent the withdrawl of a nodenumber. Does ZC2 place Policy 4
above national law? It certainly looks like it. ZC2 of course is
safe from British Justice in Finland, and thus he is happy to take
action that is in contempt of the British courts in a case that is
sub-judice. I would suggest that ZC2 would be well advised not to
visit the UK in future, he may find that a warrant has been issued
for his contempt.
[I retract the suggestion that ZC2 was in contempt of court, as the
case had not been placed before the courts, and was not due to the
costs involved in initiating the civil action required to obtain a
court judgement prior to a (criminal) contempt action occuring. I
also withdraw the suggestion that ZC2 stated the sysop was guilty of
blackmail, he actually stated the opinion that the behaviour of the
sysop was disguised blackmail.]
(1) ZC2 mandated that Region25 must reorganise geographically -
despite the fact that the only complaints about the non geographic
organisation were purely based on policy, and not any problem that
the non-geographic nets were causing.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 18 02 Aug 1993
[I now accept that ZC2 has in no way been involved in the move to
reorganise Region 25 along geographic lines.]
(3) RC25 / ZC2 were not prepared to accept this, and in one case,
when a sysop said "We will incur costs" said "So what, Sue Me."
[ZC2 (Ron Dwight) never said "so what, sue me", that was a comment
made by the then RC25 (Peter Burnett).]
(4) When the sysop concerned responded to RC25s public taunts to sue
him by doing just that, both RC25 and ZC2 deemed the sysop to be
excessively annoying.
[The above was inaccurate, in so far as RC25 issued an XAB against
the node for XAB, ZC2 stated the opinion that the behaviour of the
sysop concerned was disguised blackmail.]
(5) When the RC25 realised that the sysop concerned had a cast iron
case for a restraining suit, he chickened out and resigned the Post.
As a result, ZC2 has now imposed himself as RC25, unwanted by a
large number of sysops in the region.
[The above was inaccurate, in that (1) RC25 did not at any time
acknowledge that the sysop concerned had a valid case, "cast iron"
or otherwise, and (2) RC25 did not resign the post, rather ZC2 took
action to, in ZC2's words "remove him from the firing line" (3) the
action being discussed was an application for an inujunction
preventing RC25 from withdrawing or causing to be withdrawn the
sysops current FidoNet address.]
Does FidoNet really want people who seem committed to a route of
disharmony in positions where, by editing a file, they can remove
sysops from the nodelist? I think not - yet this is the state we are
in, today, in Zone 2. *Cs are charged with the technical management
of the network, and to decide that a sysop exercising his legal
rights is worthy of excommunication is a dangerous precedent to set.
[Again, the above was inaccurate, ZC2 did not state that the node as
guilty of XAB or would be excommunicated, he stated that, whatever
the outcome of any case, the sysop concerned would lose the FidoNet
address that he wished to maintain.]
Finally, I would like to point out that (1) The matter has now been
settled to the apparent satisfaction of all concerned, and (2) no
sysop has as yet been excommunicated in relation to this matter.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 19 02 Aug 1993
The Region 25 IGate
George Dorn
The Regional IGate (In-Gate), although not formally recognised as a
FidoNet routing node, is a way in which a Region can act to reduce
the costs incurred by sysops sending mail to sysops within that
Region. Instead of making separate calls to the Host of each node or
group of nodes to which mail is being sent, a single call may be
made to the Region. In the case of Zone 2 Region 25, the UK, such
calls tend to be International, and this is also the case with many
other Regions outside the North American and Australian
Sub-Continents. These calls are not cheap, and thus any way in which
a Region can act to reduce the costs of nodes calling in from
outside is to be applauded. Therefore, Zone 2 Region 25 has
implemented a Regional IGate.
Thus, if you wish to send netmail from somewhere in Zone 6 to, for
example, 2:441/80, 2:440/3, 2:256/62, 2:252/110, 2:441/99 and
2:255/385, you can now do so in a single call, rather than calling 5
separate hosts.
In Region 25, the Regional IGate is assigned a Regional level entry
of 2:25/999. Mail for the following net list (as at NodeList 211)
can now be routed to 2:25/999:
2:25/*, 2:250/*, 2:251/*, 2:252/*, 2:253/*, 2:254/*, 2:255/*,
2:256/*, 2:257/*, 2:258/*, 2:259/*, 2:440/*, 2:441/*, 2:442/*,
2:443/*, 2:444/*, 2:2501/*,
and when it comes on line (which may be NodeList 218) 2:2502/*.
Obviously there are some restrictions, and it is suggested that
anyone who wishes to route files, commercial or encrypted / encoded
(including asciified binaries, archives etc) messages through the
IGate contact the GateKeeper, Pete Franchi, before they do so.
The IGate does not stop nodes using the ZoneGates, and it does not
stop you calling Direct, or Routing to Net Hosts, however it does
provide another option which should be faster than the Zonegate but
cheaper than individual calls. At the end of the day, whether you
use it or not is up to you, the sysop making the International
calls.
George Dorn
pp UK Sysops Everywhere (inc Finland, Germany & Outer Mongolia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regionalization - why we need it
From: Harald Armin Massa (2:2407/9.7 - REGION24.169)
During netwars '93 in region 24 my thoughts circled around the
basic question for weeks: what is the unbelievable power in
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 20 02 Aug 1993
regionalization, that makes sysops fight bloodcurdling battles,
nake them forget mother, father and former friends - just letting
the nodenumber reflect the phone companies' region code simply
couldn't motivate so strong.
Once again taking a shower I saw the light: Fidoists need
regionalization for the same reason Muslims don't eat pork and
Catholics don't use contraceptive devices: when these dogmas
were founded, they made good sense: it's better not to eat
pork 'cause of trichine illness if you don't have a fridge,
and the former weak nation of israel needed needed every sperm
to rise their civilisation. Nowadays both rules aren't very
sensible - ok, we won't discuss about vegetarian food now.
You'll see the same kind of dogma ruling Fidoism: The words
written in THE POLICY were given to make it more pleasent to form
networks under the phone tarifs given at a certain time in the US.
Nowadays, in zone 2, there are totally different tarif structures
forming our phone bills. Additionally there are some interpersonal
effects concerning the NCs and HUBs of the former networks: often
the distance between the minds of two NCs of two overlapping
networks is much bigger than the 60km between their modems.
So, what to do? We HAVE to follow the words given by THE POLICY,
and have to regionalize our networks in region 24. But we should
form regions based on the real distances - the distances between
the minds of people who like each other or dislike each other.
It has to be a regionalization of hearts.
And, by the way, we already had networks formed by the regions
defined by the hearts, and still they exist in FIDO-CLASSIC or
region24.169 - what ever you want to call it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the Confusion in Region 18 and Elsewhere?
Christopher Baker
Rights On! Titusville_FL
1:374/14 [1:18/0]
What is FidoNet Coordination?
There seems to be some confusion about what Coordinators do in
FidoNet these days and nowhere is the confusion more apparent
than in Region 18 of Zone 1 and certain parts of Zone 2 (judging
by the inflammatory rhetoric that passes for FidoNews articles
of late).
It appears that certain Net Coordinators here and there are
under the impression that they have some special kind of 'rights'
as NCs that entitle them to make up their own rules with no regard
for FidoNet Policy or permit them to remove Nodes from the
Nodelist at their discretion.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 21 02 Aug 1993
Strange devolution from the original purpose of Nets and
Net Coordinators but not surprising considering the dynamics of
FidoNet growth and the lack of administerial skills demonstrated
by some of our neophytes and even a few old timers.
Coordinators are just Sysops. A lot of them tend to forget that or
at least they give the impression that they have some mighty power
that plain, old Nodes don't. The Coordinator's only purpose in
FidoNet life is just to administer those few things that require
the occasional tweak like their Net segment or the weekly file
distribution. This comes as a shock to a few of them. They don't
like it one bit when they are brought up short of their vision
of power and glory. That's too bad.
There are a few in Coordinator slots that just don't get it. They
don't have a clue about FidoNet or how it works. They don't
or won't understand that a lot of what happens in FidoNet is
arbitrary and top-down managed. Sure, we have elections in some
places and they do offer a certain measure of accountability but
those elections are not, for the most part, mandated in FidoNet
Policy as currently written. Even where elections are encouraged
or tolerated, though, there are still certain things Coordinators
cannot do.
One of these things is to yank someone out of the Nodelist without
a darn good reason. Another of these things is to make up rules
that have no support in FidoNet Policy. Policy interpretation is
one thing but ruling a fiefdom as a Net Coordinator is not what
Policy had in mind then or now.
This is, after all, ONLY a hobby to most people. I won't say to all
since it is obvious that a few of the folks in FidoNet have their
entire life and existence tied up in the comings and goings of this
Node or that Node or this Coordinator or whatever. Those are the sad
people of FidoNet, in my opinion. They are also very often the most
noisy since they perceive the most to lose in some situations that
actually have little to do with them, personally.
Recently, it has been necessary to replace a couple Net Coordinators
in Region 18. This is no big news since this happens from time to
time. Usually, Coordinators are replaced because they retire in office
and fail to perform any of the duties required by FidoNet Policy. That
kind of online retirement is the fault of the next level up failing
to pay attention to their job, too. Sometimes they just don't
cooperate. This is a cooperative network.
Not only do Coordinators have specific responsibilities spelled out
clearly in Policy, they also have a responsibility to cooperate up
and down the line with the Nodes they coordinate and with those who
coordinate them. This is where the biggest snag seems to lie with
certain individuals who do not work and play well with others. When
cooperation and reasonable action fail, it's time to make a few
administrative changes.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 22 02 Aug 1993
There is a lot of talk about 'rights' in FidoNet. I'm not sure who
started this idea but there are no 'rights' in FidoNet. Not for
anyone. The only one with any 'rights' at all is the guy who holds
the copyright for the name we operate under, FidoNet, and that guy
is Tom Jennings. The rest only have a privilege of association.
That's what this is, you know, an association of Sysops. Everyone
has a duty to it but no one has a right to it. The duty is spelled
out in FidoNet Policy: Run a compliant mailer; observe ZMH; do
nothing illegal via FidoNet; don't be annoying. Anyone who can't
handle those requirements is in the wrong place.
FidoNet Policy is the worst hodgepodge of conflicting, self-serving,
argumentative, ill-defined, pseudo-legalese I've ever seen. It's the
source of much contention and misunderstanding in FidoNet. It is
so out-of-date it would be laughable if it weren't our only guideline
for administrative action. As such, it is subject to the
interpretation of the Coordinator structure; each level higher with
more authority to determine proper interpretation than the last.
That's just the way it is. Nothing can be done about that in its
present form. That being the case, it shouldn't be too startling to
find out that those with the larger responsibility consult and reach
consensus on those issues that have broad import and having done so
treat that consensus as the standard interpretation for all the
Coordinators below them. The ZCs tell the RCs and the RCs tell the
NCs. This is no big whoop to most.
Why do we read all these gothic horror stories in FidoNews and the
various Echos then? Hmmmm. They are almost always one-sided and
filled with emotional overtones and snappy rhetoric that usually
dissolve away when the full story is offered. Is it just a natural
outgrowth of too much too soon? Too many axes to grind and oxen
gored? Is it a juvenile organization or an organization of juveniles?
Even that distinction will be lost on many of the loudest, crankiest,
whineyest Sysops out there who still bother to read FidoNews. [sigh]
You'd think if the oppression was so all-encompassing and pervasive
that the FidoNews would be 2 megs long every week. Maybe it's just
the imagination of a dissatisfied few after all? What a concept!
No one has a right to be a Coordinator or even a Node. Coordinators
are just volunteers who put their time on the line in a thankless
job. Just because it's a volunteer position is no excuse to slack off,
however. When a Coordinator isn't getting their job done, it is
imperative that their Coordinator find out why and if no resolution
is possible to find another volunteer. The woods are full of folks
who like to do what they volunteer for. It's no big deal except to
those whose attention was too little too late.
As an RC, I take my responsibilities seriously. My primary function
is to make sure the Region functions smoothly. It's spelled out right
there in FidoNet Policy. When an NC stops being cooperative or falls
asleep on the job, I remove them and replace them with somebody who
doesn't have those problems. It's a last resort but it doesn't have
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 23 02 Aug 1993
to be a long, drawn out process. Sometimes, it only takes a few
specific incidents to get an NC replaced. The bottom line is the level
of disruption to the local Net and the Region involved. This is often
at the request of the Nodes not being served. That's my job and I do
it when forced to by the non-compliant NC.
This is the way it works everywhere in FidoNet. If a majority of the
84 NCs I coordinate complained to my Coordinator, I'd be back to being
a non-Coordinator Sysop just like most of the 22,000+ folks in FidoNet.
It's that simple.
Coordinators need a thick hide because some are quick to point fingers
and make uneducated assumptions. It goes with the territory but it's
not a very good sign in a cooperative network.
Just ignore the naysayers and bellyachers. They don't have a clue and
they rarely know what they are carrying on about. The checks and
balances are in place regardless what you hear from the anonymous
article writers and replaced Coordinators.
Coordinatorship is not an honor or a blessing or a curse. It's just a
volunteer job. Those who do it correctly keep doing it. Those who don't
are replaced. Like I said, no big whoop.
TTFN.
Chris
Full-time grunt Sysop
Part-time RC18
[aka MadDog Dictator RC of R18] [oh, brother]
Post Scriptum:
Recently, in the Region 18 Coordinator Echo [HOST18], someone
questioned if Coordinator consultation and consensus prior to making
excommunication or administrative replacements was a good idea or if
it was somehow denying a level of appeal. The following was my
response. It may be illustrative for those in similar circumstance.
Msg # 8
Date: 28 Jul 93 21:02:12
From: Christopher Baker
To: An NC
Subj: Re: response from the ZC
______________________________________________________________________
>> That does not make the cutting of a level of appeal implication
>> correct.....Those judges DO NOT go ask the judge who will hear the
>> appeal what their decision will be when/if asked.
> True. They look more at patterns of precedent in the people who
> would likely hear such an appeal. It's just difficult to do that with
> such a small group. Perhaps I'm still just idealistic enough to
> expect objectivity from those people who are supposed to make a
> decision based solely on the information presented to them <sigh>.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 24 02 Aug 1993
it has nothing to do with appeal levels at all, actually. there are no
'judges' in FidoNet. it is not a government. it is not a courtroom. it
is not a lawmaking body. it has NO parallels in the real world.
Policy4 beyond its technical references is purely interpretive. the
ones responsible for that interpretation are the Coordinators. to
achieve a consistent interpretation, consensus is desirable to prevent
40 different interpretations from complicating an otherwise
straightforward hobby operation.
some people treat Policy as if it were some kind of legal statute. they
also treat complaints as some sort of holy grail. Policy is a guideline
for operations and for resolving disputes. it is not law or any attempt
at law.
most disputes are the result of misunderstanding or unrealistic
expectations. few are actually dealing with malicious acts and most
should never have been filed in the first place. the object of filing
one is behavior modification. the object of dealing with them is
resolving a problem at the lowest possible level. with that in mind, it
makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable to work out these
things with input from higher levels with more experience dealing with
them. when it comes to interpretation, the ZC tells the RCs and the RCs
tell the NCs and the NCs tell the Nodes. the IC rarely tells anyone
anything even when he/she is awake.
that's how it works in Zone 1, anyway. it isn't short circuiting
anyones 'rights'. the only one with 'rights' in FidoNet is the guy who
holds the copyright to the word FidoNet. that's Tom Jennings. everyone
else has a privilege of association provided they meet the requirements
of that association. those requirements are spelled out in FidoNet
Policy and augmented by the consensus of the upper Coordinator structure
who have the ultimate responsibility [according to Policy and reality]
for the care and feeding of this beast.
i hope this helps, insight-wise. there's a lot of misinformation
floating around about what FidoNet is and does.
TTFN.
Chris
RC18
--- DB B2011/001027
* Origin: Rights On! - Coordinate This! - Titusville_FL (1:374/14)
-30-
C.B.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Spirit Network
FREE SPIRIT NETWORK - People who care about People
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 25 02 Aug 1993
===================
by Russ Goodale
The Free Spirit Network (Zone 169) is a Network for people that
care about other people. There is no age limit on joining this
network although Sysops that are minors will not be allowed to
receive Adult Echoes from any hub.
This network is a team effort by all involved. Prejudice based
on color, sex choice, religion, etc. must be put aside. Those
unable to put aside these prejudices, this net is not for you.
A signed agreement is required to join this Network.
Free Spirit only distributes echomail and takes no ownership to
any echo with the exception of the two Sysop Echoes. Moderators
and Sysops of the originating echo are in complete control of
their echoes. Sysops starting echoes in the Free Spirit Network
retain control of the echo. Echo owners may gate their echoes
to other Networks.
Echo owners may make arrangements to gate any non-backbone echoes
into Free Spirit as long as they are a member of Free Spirit and
they have complete control of the echo (no Network is in control
of the echo). Echo owners must be willing to send echoes for
zone gating to the zone gating hub in Seattle, Washington.
Sysop echoes (2) must be made available to all system users.
The reason, our members are an important part of our Network and
we want their ideas, thoughts and suggestions. Sysops do have
the final say. There are no hidden Sysop echoes. These echoes
may also teach and help the user understand how much work it
takes on the Sysops part to bring in these Networks. And it may
help to keep Sysops from those Network fights. After all, if
they want to yell and scream at others, they will do it in
front of those that call their own system. To make a network
work, we must work together as a team in a win/win situation.
A dumb question is one that isn't asked, a dumb answer is one
that requires yelling and screaming. It's okay to disagree,
as long as it remains a discussion.
Sysops have more responsibility. Sysops may connect to the hub(s)
of their choice. Sysops are responsible to make sure they only
receive/send an echo to one hub. Sysops must prevent dupe loops
and make sure they are zone aware. Sysops are responsible for
the echomail they carry. Due to some quirky laws, some echoes
may be legal in some areas and illegal in others. Hubs will only
carry echomail that is legal in their area so Nodes may need to
connect with multiple hubs for the echomail they seek. Sysops
are responsible of knowing echo policies before they start to
receive an echo and make any needed restrictions.
To join, you must review the information contained within FSNET.ZIP.
This file may be obtained from the following systems:
HalfLife Oakland, CA. 1:215/606
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 26 02 Aug 1993
Kinston Micro / Connie's Corner Kinston, NC. 1:151/50
Paul's Waka Waka Seattle, WA. 1:343/117
The Shrine BBS Sunnyvale, CA. 1:204/666
The file may be available with the Magic Name FSNET.
You may also receive this file by calling The Room Next Door on
(206) 938-3966 (300-12,000) or (206) 938-1832 (300-14.4k).
If you believe in "Human Rights," check us out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The definative archiver test, Part 1.
Shawn McMahon
1:206/1701.666
I recently decided I was sick of seeing partial tests of archivers,
where somebody picked their favorite and fed it a file that isn't
relevant to Fidonet mail, so I decided to do my own test. The results
are given below.
The test file is a packet containing an entire day's contents of the
Fidonet TREK echo; there may be some PUBLIC_KEYS in there, as well.
I'm keeping the packet, so I could be persuaded to let somebody have it
to check my results.
I used EXECTIME.COM, a TSR that I found (uncredited) on a BBS, to time
the results. If the EXECTIME author will contact me, I'd be happy to
credit him.
I shut off my disk cache to avoid giving an edge to any archivers for
which I had to check syntax.
In order to be included, an archiver had to meet the following criteria:
1) Be suitable for use with Fidonet mail. I made an exception for HAP,
which isn't suitable since it can't handle packets with different
extensions.
2) Be a legal release version meant for the public.
3) Have documentation available to me. (This is why HYPER isn't
included; I haven't found an archive with docs yet.)
4) Have said documentation, and the program help text, in English.
If your favorite archiver isn't included, please let me know where I
can get a copy that meets the criteria.
archive length time archiver/ command line
version
c4eb3250 pkt 176408 Original unarchived text
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 27 02 Aug 1993
test arc 102994 7.03 arc 6.02 arc a test *.pkt
test zoo 94031 9.89 zoo 2.1 zoo a test *.pkt
test dwc 90111 2.91 dwc a5.01 dwc a test *.pkt
testz dwc 84528 3.63 dwc a5.01 dwc az testz *.pkt
test pak 64259 12.41 pak 2.51 pak a test.pak *.pkt
test1 zip 62612 7.85 pkzip 1.1 pkzip1 a test1 *.pkt
test1ex zip 62612 7.75 pkzip 1.1 pkzip1 a -ex test1ex *.pkt
testh zoo 61673 28.29 zoo 2.1 zoo ah testh *.pkt
test lzh 61542 19.91 lharc 2.13 lha a test *.pkt
test arj 58286 11.48 arj 2.3 arj a test *.pkt
testjm arj 58242 11.76 arj 2.3 arj a -jm testjm *.pkt
test2 zip 57719 6.59 pkzip 2.04g pkzip a test2 *.pkt
test sqz 57409 12.74 sqz 1.08.3 sqz a test *.pkt
test2ex zip 57242 9.28 pkzip 2.04g pkzip a -ex test2ex *.pkt
testq0 sqz 57242 14.55 sqz 1.08.3 sqz a -q0 testq0 *.pkt
test hpk 55314 34.93 hpack .78a0 hpack a test *.pkt
test hap 53467 28.34 hap 3.00 hap a test *.pkt
DWC turned in the fastest times, but the third and fourth worst
compression ratios.
ARC is a hopeless dinosaur; it wasn't even in the running as far as
compression goes.
PAK was kind of surprising; considering it's age, I'm amazed ARC has
stuck around so long as a standard.
I double-checked the results of the PKZip 1.1 test; the maximal
compression mode did, indeed, go faster yet produce the same size
archive. The reasons should be obvious with a little thought; in
hindsight, anyway. :-)
Based on these results, I intend to go on using PKZip 2.04g for my
Fidonet whenever possible.
Those who are desperate for size but have all the time in the world for
compression, such as points and non-hub nodes with 2400 bps modems,
should look into HPack. It's available for a wide range of machines,
and has excellent security features as well. (Can you say built-in
PGP?)
ARJ looks to be a good choice, but not very portable.
PKZip-compatibility will probably port faster, since lots of BBSes use
it for everything.
Again, I'd like to point out that HAP, as of version 3.0, is not
suitable for Fidonet work since it ALWAYS creates archives named *.HAP,
and PAH, the unarchiver, can't unpack them unless they have that name.
Folks, remember something; the standard is only there for communicating
with people you don't know. If you want to use PKZip with your
echomail hub, then just ASK him to switch.
If he won't switch it on for you, then go somewhere else for your
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 28 02 Aug 1993
echomail; there's no law against it.
If you're getting it via a local call and don't want to switch to long
distance, what the hell are you griping about? Switching won't save
you any money anyway.
If your hub won't switch it for you, try checking with his other nodes;
if they want to switch too, you can all send letters to the appropriate
C asking him to talk to your hub.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MARANATHA! NET INTERNATIONAL
by Martin Riley
MARANATHA! NET INTERNATIONAL.
"Spreading God's Salvation message through
the TRUTH of scripture & LOVE of Jesus."
()
()
()()()()
() A REAL ONE GOD APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN NETWORK!
() Serving the Christian community since 1991!
() Elaborate and exciting Bible debates!
() Over 25 religious and NON-religious echoes to choose from!
() A Christian file support line!
() Nodes in CANADA and the USA!
() A Christian Network in five languages with echo support!
() A Non-denominational Net that stands FIRMLY on God's TRUTHS!
Hi everyone! My name is Martin Riley and I am the International
Coordinator for Maranatha! Net International. Maranatha! Net
International is a young and growing One God Apostolic Christian
Net that was started in 1991 in Calgary, Alberta Canada. So why
the post in Fido News? To let people know that there is a
growing and blessed of God, One God Apostolic Network they
can grow with and be a part of.
Why is Maranatha! Net here?
Maranatha! Net is a Network that strives to spread the Good News
of the Bible and offer Christian message and file support to
those of the Christian faith. What separates Maranatha! Network
from other Christian Networks?
(A)
Maranatha! Net International is non-denominational. We believe
the Power of God has the ability to cross over the denominational
walls men put up. We in Maranatha! Net believe Christian
Fellowship is based on God's Holy Ghost and all those who have
obeyed God's salvation message, and NOT what paticular church
or group of people you happen belong to.
(B)
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 29 02 Aug 1993
Maranatha! Net International, (unlike some other Networks that
*CLAIM* to be Apostolic in nature) feel that one does not have to
resort to insults, abuse, or maliciousness towards other people or
other Networks to spread the Gospel and saving message of Jesus
Christ. Maranatha! Net International feels that the Gospel needs
to be proclaimed the way Jesus told us to proclaim it....by
standing on the firm and solid rock of Biblical TRUTH, and by
sharing this same TRUTH the way Jesus told us to share it, with
LOVE, COMPASSION, and UNDERSTANDING.
(C)
Maranatha! Net International also believes in NOT axing your
Net membership just because you happen to have a different
theological belief than that of an echo moderator or
Coordinator at any level. Sound interesting? :-)
Maranatha! Network is exciting and I would urge you to be a part
of it!
Maranatha! Network has over 25 RELIGIOUS and NON-RELIGIOUS echoes
to choose from with topics ranging from cooking, camping, hunting,
fishing, ect.. to theological discussions, end time discussions,
Bible studies and several other echoes of popular family and
Christian interest!
Since Maranatha! Network has last posted in Fido News,
Maranatha! Net has, under the grace of God, has grown with
nodes in Washington, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, California,
British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario! It's an exciting
Network and one we hope you can become a part of it! :-)
If you wish more information concerns Maranatha! Network, you can
download MARANATH.ZIP from either: 1:134/95 (FidoNet) in Canada,
or 1:160/103 (FidoNet) in the United States. Or you can leave me
a personal net mail message at 1:134/95 FIDO.
If you do send me personal net mail, please insure that you send
it using your FIDO address so that I can get back to you. Some
people have sent me Net mail with a "Try to guess what Net I'm in"
zone addresses. :-) Thank you for your time!
A special thank you to Fido Net for the chance to
advertise Maranatha! Net in the FIDO NEWS!
Martin Riley
International Coordinator
Maranatha! Net International
22:22/0 Maranatha!
1:134/95 Fido Net!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!
by Jack Decker
I recently picked up the last month's worth of Fidonews issues from
an Internet FTP server. Yes, you can get Fidonews via the Internet;
in fact you can even get Fidonet nodelists and nodediffs, although on
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 30 02 Aug 1993
some of the servers they may be a few days outdated.
I am amazed by many things I have read. I am truly amazed to see
that Policy 4 is still in effect after four years, when about half
the net thought it was a terrible document at the time it was put in
place, and even many supporters of it viewed it only as an
intermediate stepping stone to a better document.
I am amazed that some coordinators are still around and still acting
like petty jerks. I guess what really amazes me is that in some
cases the same names are around that were there four or five years
ago, and they are still causing problems. Why is it that you hardly
ever hear a single complaint about some RC's, while others insist on
going out and bullying some defenseless sysop every so often?
I am really, truly amazed that the average sysop has not yet realized
what a terrible thing the geographic restrictions of Policy 4 are. I
railed against these almost incessantly at the time they were put in
place, and for years afterwards. Check your back issues of Fidonews;
I haven't counted but I'd guess that at least 50% of my past Fidonews
articles caontained some reference to the asinine geographic
restrictions contained in Policy 4. Most sysops shrugged and said
"I'm getting my mail and echomail, why should I care?" Maybe some of
those same sysops are now having to pay more to get their mail, or
maybe they have dropped out of Fidonet.
I hate to say "I told you so", but it's true. For those that still
don't get it, what the geographic restrictions do is create a
monopoly situation. You are forced to deal with only certain people
for your netmail, echomail, nodelist listing, etc. and if you don't
get the level of service that you might get in another net, or if you
are asked to pay ten times as much as nodes in another net, or if you
simply can't get along with the people in charge, you are up the
proverbial creek without a paddle. According to Policy 4, you are
not allowed to go elsewhere.
In contrast, if nets were organized strictly on a voluntary basis
(you join the net you want to join, which may or may not be the
nearest one geographically), you would eliminate about 90% of the
problems in Fidonet. Your NEC wants too much for echomail? Find
another feed. Your NC says you have to take six local conferences
you don't want or be excommunicated? Find another NC. Your RC cuts
off your entire net to prove some point (usually that he is a bigger
jerk than any other RC in Fidonet)? With non-geographic nets, there
would be no need for RC's. As far as I can see, there's no real need
for RC's anyway, they just gum up the works (but that's my opinion
only, and I apologize for denigrating any good RC's out there).
Now, I am going to share something personal with you. I started out
in Fidonet back in 1987, before many of these controls were put in
place. Despite what anyone may tell you, Fidonet was a much nicer
place to be back then. I have seen the power-mongers and
control-freaks gradually assimilate and concentrate their authority,
and Policy 4 was one of the tools they've used to do this.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 31 02 Aug 1993
About a month ago, I had to go out of town for a few days, and I had
to take my computer with me. By this point I had turned off all
Fidonet echoes, and was only getting netmail. So I had the system
that polled me every night discontinue polling and took down my
system entirely, and after I got back I just never bothered to turn
it back on. See, as the control freaks got more and more abusive, I
wanted less and less to be part of Fidonet.
Of course, I have an option that many of you don't have. Last
November I moved and in my new location I have access to Michnet, a
statewide non-profit packet network in Michigan (one that could well
be the model for a national data network, by the way). Through
Michnet I can access the Internet and get access to all the Usenet
news I could ever want to read. I can also connect to the various
Freenet systems, and receive mail that way. I can connect to various
FTP servers and download files. At present this doesn't cost me a
dime (because of upcoming changes at Michnet, I will soon be limited
to only being able to connect to sites in Michigan or to Gopher
systems for free, but there's still more available in that subset of
the Internet than I could ever hope to want!).
So I should be happy, right? I should be able to just turn up my
nose at the jerks running Fidonet and walk away, and say "Goodbye,
you S.O.B.'s, you'll never be able to turn the screws to me again!"
Except that I care. I recently took a personality test I found at an
Internet FTP site (in effect, a place where you can download files),
and the description for people of my personality type reads in part
as follows:
"Beneath the quiet exterior, INFJ's hold deep convictions about the
weightier matters of life. Those who are activists--INFJ's gravitate
toward such a role--are there for the cause, not for personal glory
or political power.
"INFJ's are champions of the oppressed and downtrodden. They often
are found in the wake of an emergency, rescuing those who are in
acute distress. INFJ's may fantasize about getting revenge on those
who victimize the defenseless. The concept of 'poetic justice' is
appealing to the INFJ.
"'There's something rotten in Denmark.' Accurately suspicious about
others' motives, INFJ's are not easily led. These are the people
that you can rarely fool any of the time......"
I apologize for reprinting so much of that, but I suspect that this
description also applies to many of the other folks who do
passionately care about where Fidonet is going, and who see through
some of the actions of the various coordinators. Naturally, the
"bad" coordinators do not like having their inner motives laid on the
table for all in Fidonet to see, so they naturally see those of us
who care as a thorn in their sides, and if at all possible, a
nuisance to be eliminated.
By the way, according to one of the documents that I FTP'd along with
the personality test, those of the INFJ personality type comprise
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 32 02 Aug 1993
only about 1% of the total population. So in any given net or
region, there aren't going to be that many of us, making us a
minority and therefore, convenient targets.
(Also by the way, I will add a disclaimer that the personality test
stuff is only one of many guides to someone's personality, and may
not always give an accurate picture. Still, I found the above
fascinating because it seemed to describe those who get truly
passionate about things like this, and then when it mentioned that
there were so few of us, it helped me understand why it was always so
difficult to get many Fidonet sysops fired up enough to want to
change the status quo.)
The problem is that no matter how much I may care, or others who have
a similar personality type care, no changes are going to come if
everyone else decides not to "rock the boat" until THEY PERSONALLY
are afflicted, and then only until their particular problem is
solved. For example, let's say that suddenly the German *C's back
down and restore the nodelist exactly as it was in mid-June. Does
that mean our problems are over? Does that mean that it will never
happen again, in any other part of Fidonet? Of course not. Policy 4
will still be in effect. Instead of applying band-aids to these
problems, we need to perform major surgery, starting with Policy 4.
Now, I would like to digress for just a moment to give you an example
of what real-life politicians have done here in Michigan (yes, this
does have an application to Policy 4, please bear with me for two
paragraphs!). For years, schools in Michigan have been financed
mostly through property taxes. As education spending has increased,
these taxes have gone up and up, with the result that Michigan had
some of the highest property taxes anywhere (for those outside of
Michigan, in this state the term "property taxes" generally refers to
taxes on the value of real estate, including any improvements such as
houses, businesses, or other buildings located on the property).
Because of this, major businesses were moving out of state, and in
some cases people were not improving or repairing their homes to
avoid additional taxation. So the legislature tried to pass all
sorts of plans that would lower property taxes a little and increase
revenue from other sources a little. In other words, they tried to
take a bad law and dress it up a little. But they could never get
such plans passed, because there was never any agreement on the best
way to accomplish the goal of lowering property taxes, nor on what
should be done to make up the difference.
Finally, they did the one thing they could agree on... they passed a
law saying that property taxes could no longer be used to support the
schools, thus cutting property taxes by almost two-thirds instantly.
Of course the education lobby cried about how irresponsible this
action was, but legislators were simply tired of arguing without ever
reaching any resolution, so they decided to eliminate the one option
that had always been open to them in the past: Delaying action while
keeping the status quo! Now, they feel that all sides will have much
more incentive to come up with a new and better way to finance the
schools, and that agreement will finally be within their grasp (also,
the governor feels that much of the shortfall can be made up by
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 33 02 Aug 1993
cutting waste and excess spending in other state programs).
So how does this apply to Fidonet? I have a simple proposal: Instead
of haggling endlessly over what should be in a new Policy document,
let's try to accomplish just one thing immediately. Let's enact a
Policy 5, that contains EVERY SINGLE WORD of Policy 4 but adds just
one paragraph, as follows:
"This Policy will be in effect until December 31, 1993, after which
time it will be null and void. No portion of this Policy may be
enforced against any Fidonet sysop after that date. Any Policy
document which supersedes this Policy must be enacted by a majority
vote of all sysops in Fidonet. If no new Policy document has been
enacted by December 31, 1993 then no official Policy shall be in
effect in Fidonet. Temporary extensions of the expiration date of
this Policy shall not be permitted for any reason."
Do you suppose that if this were added to Policy 4, folks might feel
a little bit more inclined to put forth some decent policy proposals,
knowing that there would actually be a vote taken? The point is, for
the first step, get rid of the option to keep the status quo. Once
everyone knows that Policy 4 will be history in a few months, there
can be some serious discussion about how to fix some of the wrongs in
Fidonet. Or, maybe sysops will decide that we don't really NEED an
"official policy"... that should be an option as well.
Personally, I think that Policy documents should be as short as
possible and leave things as open-ended as possible, but others may
disagree. The point is that right now those who are happy enough
with current policy (because they are not being adversely affected by
it at the moment) see no real need to hurry and change it. This
would at least give folks a reason to start thinking seriously about
how policy could be improved.
If you care about Fidonet and don't want to see it fall apart node by
node (or region by region), ask your NC to support a "sunset clause"
amendment to Policy 4. Or just wait until you get disgusted and then
walk away, like I did. If you take the latter option, you won't feel
good about it, but if your blood pressure is already a bit too high
you may need to consider that action. In any case, I wish everyone
well, and hope that in another four years Policy 4 is part of ancient
history!
Jack Decker
Internet address: ao944@yfn.ysu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ARJ vs ZIP, The Faceoff
By Scott Shaffer, Satellite of Love BBS (1:106/4580)
I must comment on Scott Millers test of compression utilities. While
I think some solid testing on the archivers has merit, Scott's should
not be considered a very accurate reflection on either programs
abilities. Simply using 1 file to test an archivers capabilities is
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 34 02 Aug 1993
clearly not how they should be judged. I would like to try to put
forward a little better data compression test, and hopefully make
things a little clearer.
First, it would seem to me that time involved in comp/decomp is of
little consequence since the true bottleneck in our community is the
data xfer speed. However, I understand that the time involved is
very important to some people, and I do not wish to discount it.
But, since the time to comp/decomp will be different on each machine
(even of the same type CPU and clock speed) due to the wide array of
hardware available, I will not publish any timings. I will say that
the time to compress and decompress are almost the same for both
programs on my machine, and your mileage may vary.
Second, to judge the effectiveness of differing archivers, a set of
test data must be developed that accurately reflects the type of data
that gets compressed routinely by the users. In the BBS community,
that data set is necessarily large. I would like to put forward my
test suite of data and explain the rational behind it.
I would like note that this data suite does NOT propose to test the
algorithms in question. Instead, I want to test the implementation
of the different algorithms. Therefore, there will be none of the
traditional 'best case' or 'worst case' scenarios here. I am looking
to test REAL WORLD situations.
I have broken down the test data into the types of files that I think
are most often transmitted in our BBS community. Three types are
worth testing: executable files, text files, and graphics files. It
is easy to see why executables are the most important, as they make
up the bulk of BBS file areas (except some graphics, see below).
Text files are an area where compression can be easily gained (thank
Huffman), and all those documentation files are worth shrinking.
Graphic files are sort of a mixed bag. I have left out the format of
files that are already compressed (like PCX, GIF, and JPG) since they
yield minimal compression factors (and most boards don't bother
compressing them). I have then decided that regular old BMPs are
what remains, and worthy data for the compression programs.
Finally, I have included WAV files as an interesting exercise. Since
audio is a different type of data altogether, it would benefit from a
completely different compression algorithm (one in Dr. Dobb's Journal
supposedly gets 6 to 1 losseless compression.) However, these are not
in widespread use, and I thought it would be interesting to see how
our regular archivers worked out. The WAV files are all type 1
uncompressed.
SETUP
The test machine is a i486DX50, and I am using ARJ 2.41 and PKZIP
2.04g.
The test files are a random collection of things found on my hard
disk.
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 35 02 Aug 1993
The commands to each program:
arj a -m1 -jm * *
pkzip -ex * *
RESULTS
38 BMP files 23 EXE files 115 TXT files 20 WAV files
raw 5319542 3812802 2791543 2828241
ARJ 1515298 28% 1421666 37% 807103 28% 1289020 45%
PKZIP 1499382 28% 1416247 37% 801885 28% 1279533 45%
diff 15916 1% 5419 0.4% 5218 0.7% 9487 0.7%
CONCLUSIONS
Although PKZIP was better in each test, it was always 1% or less.
This is not enough for me to call one a 'winner'. Oh, and I don't
propose we change the standard in Fidonet to anything. ARC is
clearly the best choice today, as it has true multiplatform support.
While it would seem that ZIP is gaining some ground (I think the GNU
folks have a ZIP out), it isn't there yet.
Any comments on the methods or data set used are welcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello,
Tom Jennings
IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS)
Internet addresses:
Don & Sylvia (submission address)
editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com
(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
FidoNews
172 Duke St. E.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 1A7
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 36 02 Aug 1993
Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.
Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).
OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)
BACK ISSUES: Available from FidoNet nodes 1:102/138, 1:216/21,
1:125/1212, (and probably others), via filerequest or download
(consult a recent nodelist for phone numbers).
A very nice index to the Tables of Contents to all FidoNews volumes
can be filerequested from 1:396/1 or 1:216/21. The name(s) to request
are FNEWSxTC.ZIP, where 'x' is the volume number; 1=1984, 2=1985...
through 8=1991.
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.ieee.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org, not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission.
Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 10-31 Page: 37 02 Aug 1993

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink