Felipe T. Dorado (2:345/702) wrote to Steven Horn at 13:32 on 05 Dec 2002:

 FTD> Something was amiss then and now it is not only the modems but
 FTD> also the network.

As long as the bridge nodes exist, the network will be fine. 

 FTD> Ok, if those means of contacting other nodes is to be accepted,
 FTD> should it not be contemplated in Policy?

It probably should be.

 FTD> I think yes. And it is the nodes that cannot be contacted through
 FTD> this network the ones to put forward the proposed changes to
 FTD> Policy. That way we all, and prospective nodes, know what to do
 FTD> and what to expect if we want to contact any other node.

As you know from your correspondence with Bob Short, the modest package of
proposals he prepared (on which I assisted) appears to be going nowhere. 
In light of that, what is the likelihood of much more substantive changes
going ahead?

 FTD> That is freedom.

I won't go that far but it would make for a much more intelligent policy.:-)

 FTD> Ok, I'll get that doc and follow your suggestion.

Be warned that Michiel van der Vlis says that FTS-5000 has been modernized
but I have not seen the text.

 FTD> But from my common, down to earth, understanding of the wording of
 FTD> that first definition, a private node does not have a number to
 FTD> dial to. And as for the second, English seems to have been twisted
 FTD> to such a degree that "Hold" is supposed to mean that mail for
 FTD> that system is "held" by his uplink. :!   Whichever way I look at
 FTD> it there's always someone in between. So, no direct contact
 FTD> between nodes.

But I contact with my echomail feed directly, with Z1C directly and with
R16C directly.  However, I don't do it by telephone.

 FTD> A Spanish dish which can be made of vegetable leftovers of various
 FTD> other dishes all "cemented"/blended/disguised together with
 FTD> mayonaise.  It is an expression used to define a way of putting
 FTD> together a group of thigs of completely different nature, the
 FTD> result being a caotic mixture.

Why "chaotic"?  It blends a number of different things together
but it is good to eat so it can be said to "work".

 FTD> The "ensalada rusa" is quite good to eat though :)

Which confirms my view that it is an attractive dish.

 FTD> Yes.
 FTD> So what?

In other words, it made it possible for you to communicate with North
American nodes without cost.

 FTD> If this network can comprise snailmail, disquette-mail, voicemail,
 FTD> faxmail, modem-mail, netmail, echomail, and even IP-email and also
 FTD> telepathic-mail, plus any other types of mail still to come, it is
 FTD> my preposterous belief that those things should be clearly stated
 FTD> in Policy. And in a way that any layman in communications can

We can forget snailmail, "sneaker net" or diskette mail, voice
mail, fax mail and modem mail.  You can also forget IP-email because IONs
produce Fidonet packets just as you do.  You just deliver them over your
POTS line while we do it over the Internet.  Should the existence of IONs
be dealt with in policy?  Arguably it should but Policy has not been
amended since it was adopted in 1989 and is unlikely to be amended now. 
Why do you think the workarounds exist?

 FTD> understand. And that whatever nodelist is distributed can
 FTD> accomodate all nodes of the network without having to resort to
 FTD> various lists and dig out dubious technical sentences from
 FTD> technical docs. Other than that this network is not global and
 FTD> cannot be called one network.

The nodelist I have is similar to the one you have and does not need to be
split up to acommodate IP-only nodes.  It is also global, in some ways more
global than it was when I got my first node number in 1991.  

 FTD> Lucky you. I bought my first modem (a suprafax) in that year to
 FTD> connect to a thing called "internet" through long distance calls
 FTD> ...  Found Fido and stuck to this idea as first choice while using
 FTD> Inet at the same time. And I know of many people who don't even
 FTD> now what a network is yet. However, when one explains to them what
 FTD> it is, how it works and the difference between Fidonet and this
 FTD> internet we now call "The Internet", they all find the idea of
 FTD> Fidonet great and loathe something like an internet for various
 FTD> reasons.

All I can tell you is that when the Internet reached Whitehorse in early
1995, I lost 7 of the 10 nodes I had in Net3409 within 6 months.  Alaska
lost its 40-odd nodes by 1998 and there is no one left there. 

 FTD> You may see them exagerated and, probably you mean misled :? I
 FTD> first heard about that network back in the 80's. It seemed great.
 FTD> But it is taking just too long to come to the common people of the
 FTD> planet. And the way it is being used and abused ...  It'll be
 FTD> great when this internet, or any other, functions more like Fido.
 FTD> But that will still take years and most probably decades.

It may be taking too long to come to some people in Europe but well over
50% of the households in Canada have an Internet connection.  And while
Fido is an interesting messaging protocol, it is less than useful for
research or file transfers.

 FTD> No, it hasn't nor do they try to.  Just the opposite. It is taking
 FTD> so long to make a global network secure enough to be used with
 FTD> confidence ...  

Security is relative but what is your problem with confidence?  Have you
ever thought about how insecure Fido is? 

 FTD> So what?  I'm an end user who expresses his views from his level
 FTD> of knowledge without any reserves as to being corrected.  Please
 FTD> do, with arguments.

While I respect the view of end users more than most, I also expect them to
be honest and not pass off their comments as general truths. 

 FTD> Right. They aren't. And Inet is even less so. I fear mentioning
 FTD> certain key words in my posts ...

You do have a problem, possibly of your own making.  The volume of Internet
traffic gives you a degree of protection that Fidonet could never deliver. 
You can even encrypt your Internet communications which Fidonet still bans.

 FTD> Cheap?  You mean in the places where it is available and in the
 FTD> places where it is considered cheap ... :?   That is not the whole
 FTD> planet!

Perhaps not but should I live with the quality of a POTS connection in
Africa because it is the worst and most expensive one available?

 FTD> And we are talking about a network which claims to be global.
 FTD> Where is the globality?

It's being worked on.

 FTD> ?DSL in the Magreb is cheap?  Will superdeveloped countries
 FTD> install large servers for free and donate tens of thousands PVI
 FTD> boxes in the countries that have one washing machine per 100
 FTD> people so they can communicate with each other and the world?

The developed world may and there are now Internet service providers in
places like Burkina Faso which were not there 5 years ago.  And if their
problems seem massive (and they are), remember that their telephone
infrastructure was also abysmal.

 FTD> Throwing POTS to the rubbish is closing the door to Fido to many
 FTD> many people.

Fido closed its own doors in the underdeveloped world because telephone
lines in the Maghreb could not carry Fidonet POTS connections either. 

 FTD> Nor do I see any concern in your comments for people who can only
 FTD> afford a modest obsolete 486 and a phone line ...

I ran that modest 486 and a phone line and had a good connection to the
Internet and used that connection for Fidonet as well.  I also note that
when my system was POTS capable, no one ever called my system because I was
too far away and calls were too expensive.

 FTD> It is not the sane that need a doctor ...

The sane may not need a psychiatrist.  They may, however, not be in good health. 

 FTD> If any objection to new technologies is taken as a negative to use
 FTD> them instead of as a way to improve them, then it is better to
 FTD> "apaga y v monos" (switch off and go home).

I distinguish between "questioning" and "objecting".  I
can (and do) question the new technologies but I see simply objecting to
them as opposing them.

 FTD> I don't think so, wide open in fact.
 FTD> You might consider feasible the idea that it could be you who is
 FTD> not looking at the whole picture of a world with global
 FTD> communications. Overdeveloped countries have a strong tendency to
 FTD> think that the rest of countries are not as developed as they are
 FTD> simply because they don't want to ...

Some nations have real problems and one can move to help them.  But they
can also do a fair bit for themselves like remove dictators such as El
Caudillo..

 FTD> We all work to make this network greater, don't we?  Let's not get
 FTD> bogged down at who has the largest car, shall we?
 FTD> All cars move and even bicycles do ...

But we're not talking about vehicles but about communications.  And Apples
and IBMs and their clones and other machines can talk to each other over a
network either by a direct connection to the network or by a POTS
connection.  But that network is not Fidonet and all Fidonet wants to do is
turn us into second-class citizens.

So much for your global vision. 

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+