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