F I D O N E W S -- | Vol. 9 No. 8 (24 February 1992) The newsletter of the | FidoNet BBS community | Published by: _ | / \ | "FidoNews" BBS /|oo \ | (415)-863-2739 (_| /_) | FidoNet 1:1/1 _`@/_ \ _ | Internet: | | \ \\ | fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org | (*) | \ )) | |__U__| / \// | Editors: _//|| _\ / | Tom Jennings (_/(_|(____/ | Tim Pozar (jm) | ----------------------------+--------------------------------------- Published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet international amateur network. Copyright 1992, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact FidoNews. Paper price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.00US Electronic Price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . free! For more information about FidoNews refer to the end of this file. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ..................................................... 1 Editorial: Damage: minimal .................................... 1 2. ARTICLES ...................................................... 2 Archivers -- Do you get back what you started with ? .......... 2 UseNet vs. Fidonet - a quick comparison ....................... 7 "Beware the PowerBroker/Editors" or "Censorship is at the do .. 13 A Day in the Life of a Teenage SysOp .......................... 14 How To Pay BBS Costs .......................................... 16 Violet's Ansi Screens ......................................... 18 Home Wine Making Echo -- VIN_MAISON ........................... 21 from Richard Paddle - Rich in Paradise BBS (2:252/307) ........ 21 3. LATEST VERSIONS ............................................... 23 Software List ................................................. 23 4. FIDONEWS INFORMATION .......................................... 29 FidoNews 9-08 Page 1 24 Feb 1992 ====================================================================== EDITORIAL ====================================================================== Editorial: Damage: minimal by Tom Jennings (1:1/1) I didn't delete any files, unleash rabid batch files, hatch bogus files, deliver empty envelopes, this week. It's quite boring here. Some thnigs are better off boring. Bye! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 9-08 Page 2 24 Feb 1992 ====================================================================== ARTICLES ====================================================================== By Charles O. Buchanan 1:3812/215.6 A Test of Archivers This is not an article about which one is the best archiver or which one has the most features or which one is the fastest. My purpose in this article is simply to find out whether I can make an archive made up of several directories and different types of files and extract them to find out if I get back what I started with. What is an archiver ? It is really like an envelope that you use to mail letters. It is a way of keeping alot of different files together in one file. It also compresses the files and makes an archive that is usually smaller than all of the original files. In July 1990 I bought my first IBM compatible computer and a friend gave me a shareware program called ARC. He told me if I intended to use a modem very much I would need it. I really wasn't sure what it was, what it did, what I would use for, and if I really needed it. After calling long distance a few times to a BBS (and seeing my phone bill) I quickly learned what I could use it for. However, most of the files I ran across were in the form of *.zip which I couldn't 'unzip'. Then I found PKZ110.EXE so I could 'unzip' the files I had gotten. So I realized that there was more than one archiver around. I was really fascinated that someone could take any number of files, shrink them into one file, and then expand them back to their original size. I then noticed that there were several archivers around and wondered which one is the best ? Before you stop reading, this is not an article about which archiver is the best or 'my archiver is better than yours'. I saw an article in PC Magazine a few months back that did a comparison of archivers based mainly on two things -- size and speed. But I thought it was missing the biggest point. Will it give me back what I started with ? What I wanted to know about archivers was this. If put my files and directories (and subdirectories) in an archive and then expand it, will I get back what I originally started with ? That was my main concern and second was size. Speed was not of a great concern to me as most of the archivers work at relatively the same speed. I decided to limit my tests to shareware programs readily available and no commercial programs like FASTBACK or ARC above 6.02. I also decided to test only the more recent archivers and not the ones that were stopped like Pkarc. So my test is on 6 archivers which are : FidoNews 9-08 Page 3 24 Feb 1992 ARC 6.02 ARJ 2.30 LHA 2.13 PAK 2.51 ZIP 1.10 ZOO 2.01 which happen to be the latest shareware versions at this time. One note though -- ZOO 2.1 is available but not in a compiled version. The way I designed my test was this. I wanted files that were of 5 different types -- No attributes, Read-only, Archived, System, and Hidden files. Actually all of them are the same file with just the attributes changed. So the files and attributes were as follows : R A S H NONE.FIL - - - - READONLY.FIL X - - - ARCHIVED.FIL - X - - SYSTEM.FIL - - X - HIDDEN.FIL - - - X I then made a tree structure like this on a floppy : a:\test (all files) |-- Sub1 (all files) | |-- Sub1a (all files) | |-- Sub2 (all files) | |-- Sub2a (empty) | |-- Sub3 (empty) | |-- Sub3a (all files) | |-- Sub4 (empty) |-- Sub4a (empty) I think this is fair test to find out about attributes and directories. I wanted to find out if empty directories would be archived and if they would be expanded. I also wanted to know if the attributes on the files would be archived and expanded back to their original form. And since size is also a concern when using a modem, I wanted to know about this as well. There were a total of 25 files consuming 934,850 bytes and 9 directories. Here is the syntax I used for the archiving process : arc az c:\mytest\myarch.arc a:\test\*.* arj a /a1 /r /jm c:\mytest\myarch.arj a:\test\*.* lha a /r2x1a1 c:\mytest\myarch.lzh a: \test\*.* pak a /I /PATH /NS c:\mytest\myarch.pak a:\test\*.* pkzip -a -P -r -wHS -JRSH c:\mytest\myarch.zip a:\test\*.* stuff a:\test\*.* | zoo aI c:\mytest\myarch.zoo FidoNews 9-08 Page 4 24 Feb 1992 And here are the sizes of the archives : ARC -- 507,160 ARJ -- 662,833 LZH -- 669,321 PAK -- 413,290 ZIP -- 695,962 ZOO -- 505,199 At first glance it seems that PAK creates the smallest archive thus reducing time on-line to transmit files. But wait. Here is the syntax I used for extraction : arc xz c:\mytest\myarch.arc a:\*.* arj x /jyc /i1 c:\mytest\myarch.arj a:\ lha x /r2x1a1 c:\mytest\myarch.lzh a:\ pak e /I /PATH c:\mytest\myarch.pak a:\ pkunzip -d -JHSR c:\mytest\myarch.zip a:\ a: zoo x.// c:\mytest\myarch.zoo c: So, did I get back what I started with ? Did all of the archivers do the job ? Read on. Here's a table of what was extracted : / C / J / A / K / P / O / / R / R / H / A / I / O / / A / A / L / P / Z / Z / -------------------------------------------- TEST (all files) | | + | + | + | + | + | SUB1 (all files) | + | + | + | + | + | + | SUB1A (all files) | + | + | + | + | + | + | SUB2 (all files) | + | + | + | + | + | + | SUB2A (empty) | + | + | | | | | SUB3 (empty) | + | + | + | + | + | + | SUB3A (all files) | + | + | + | + | + | + | SUB4 (empty) | + | + | | | | | SUB4A (empty) | + | + | | | | | ARCHIVED.FIL | + | + | + | + | + | + | HIDDEN.FIL | | + | + | | + | | NONE.FIL | + | + | + | + | + | + | READONLY.FIL | + | + | + | + | + | + | SYSTEM.FIL | | + | + | | + | | And here's how the archivers handled the attribute bits : FidoNews 9-08 Page 5 24 Feb 1992 ------- ARC ------- R A S H ---------------------------------- ARCHIVED.FIL | | + | | | HIDDEN.FIL | | | | | NONE.FIL | | + | | | READONLY.FIL | | + | | | SYSTEM.FIL | | | | | ------- ARJ ------- R A S H ---------------------------------- ARCHIVED.FIL | | + | | | HIDDEN.FIL | | | | + | NONE.FIL | | | | | READONLY.FIL | + | | | | SYSTEM.FIL | | | + | | ------- LHA ------- R A S H ---------------------------------- ARCHIVED.FIL | | + | | | HIDDEN.FIL | | | | + | NONE.FIL | | | | | READONLY.FIL | + | | | | SYSTEM.FIL | | | + | | ------- PAK ------- R A S H ---------------------------------- ARCHIVED.FIL | | + | | | HIDDEN.FIL | | | | | NONE.FIL | | + | | | READONLY.FIL | | + | | | SYSTEM.FIL | | | | | ------- ZIP ------- R A S H ---------------------------------- ARCHIVED.FIL | | + | | | HIDDEN.FIL | | + | | + | NONE.FIL | | + | | | READONLY.FIL | + | + | | | SYSTEM.FIL | | + | + | | FidoNews 9-08 Page 6 24 Feb 1992 ------- ZOO ------- R A S H ---------------------------------- ARCHIVED.FIL | | + | | | HIDDEN.FIL | | | | | NONE.FIL | | + | | | READONLY.FIL | | + | | | SYSTEM.FIL | | | | | SUMMARY -------- ARC -- Did not extract the parent directory (test) but did keep all of subdirectories intact. Of the files it archived, it set only the archive bit on all files. It did not archive hidden or system files. It extracted the files in TEST into the current directory with all of the subdirectories coming off of that. ARJ -- Archived every file and directory. Extracted everything back to it's original form. I ended up with what I started with. LHA -- Archived all files and kept the attribute bits correct. It would not archive empty directories unless it was in the path to a directory that had files (SUB3). PAK -- Would not archive empty directories (except SUB3). Would not archive hidden or system files. Set the archive bit on all files. Did not keep the read-only bit. ZIP -- Would not archive empty directories (except SUB3). Archived all files, kept all attributes, but set the archive bit on every file. ZOO -- Would not archive empty directories (except SUB3). Would not archive hidden or system files. Set the archive bit on all files. Did not keep the read-only bit. -------- OVERVIEW -------- I read the manuals and tried to use the correct syntax to archive everything and to extract everything. If anyone sees something I did wrong, I would like to hear from you. All of the above archivers are very good and do a fine job. If empty directories are not important, then any of them will do the job. If the attributes of files are not important, then any of them will work as well. But be aware that not all of the archivers will archive hidden or system files as well as empty directories. FidoNews 9-08 Page 7 24 Feb 1992 If you have a special need to keep the exact tree structure, or the exact file attributes, or you need system and hidden files, then be careful about which archiver you choose. Since sending archived files over the modem is a great way to do things, it is also important that the receiving end get what you sent. It is not my purpose to reccomend one archiver over another. My sole purpose in doing this test was to see if I got back EXACTLY what I started with. Sometimes I did but at other times I did not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Decker Fidonet 1:154/8 USENET VS. FIDONET - A QUICK COMPARISON In a couple of my previous FidoNews articles I have mentioned UseNet and the Internet. Every time I do this, I get netmail from someone who has never heard of either of these, and is often taken aback to discover that there's actually a net out there that's larger than Fidonet. So, I thought it might be instructive to do a quick comparison of the two. Believe it or not, Fidonet actually comes out ahead in a couple of places. First of all, the question arises, just what is UseNet and the Internet? Well, Edward Branley answered this question in a recent message in the UFGATE echo: "What is Usenet? Internet? Bitnet? "These are cooperative networks which all operate on the store-and-forward principle. The Internet has evolved out of several government-sponsored research networks, Bitnet is primarily academic sites, and the Usenet is a mixed bag of varying sites. For more info on these and other networks, freq the file U_INTRO.ZIP [from node 1:396/10]. Better still, read the book _The Matrix_ by John S. Quarterman (Digital Press). It's an excellent overview of these networks and the technology used to keep them operating." To this I would only add that "the Internet" is sometimes seen as the primary network to which all the "branches" connect. In a way, Fidonet can also be seen as a branch of the Internet, because the domain "fidonet.org" is part of the Internet. In theory, you can send netmail to users on the Internet or any of its branches (including commercial services such as Compuserve and MCI Mail), and they can send mail to you. In practice, it usually works IF you know how to do it, and if the netmail routing between your node and the "gateway" system serving your net isn't "broken". You can find the Fidonet to UseNet gateways by scanning the nodelist for the "uucp" (or "Guucp") flag. I won't give the exact procedure for sending mail to the Internet here, because some gateway systems may require a slightly different procedure depending on the gateway software in FidoNews 9-08 Page 8 24 Feb 1992 use. Now, UseNet is similar to Fidonet in many ways, and different in many ways. The biggest difference is in protocols... everything from the way messages are formatted to the way they are bundled and transmitted is different in UseNet. On the other hand, there are some similarities. For example, in Fidonet we have netmail and echomail, and in UseNet they have mail and newsgroups. Their mail is functionally equivalent to our netmail, and their newsgroups are the equivalent of our echomail. Quoting Edward Branley again: "A newsgroup is a conference area dedicated to a particular topic or subject area. There are basic groupings for topics, such as comp (computer), misc (miscellaneous), rec (recreation), sci (science), soc (society), and talk. There are sub-sections under those basic sections. So, if you wanted to get involved in discussing Novell Netware, you'd