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 in order to save on taxes . 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 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 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