Hola Steven  :)

Monday December 02 2002 22:26, Steven Horn dec¡a a Felipe T. Dorado:

 FTD>> I can't reach your node but it is in the nodelist.

 SH> You can't but others can.  It's not so different from the days we had
 SH> incompatible modems.

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

 FTD>> A few more comments like yours and I'll tell my only PVT node
 FTD>> in my segment to go elsewhere because I dislike having a node
 FTD>> with which I cannot contact.

 SH> I worked around that because I had my PVT node's telephone number.
 SH> However, since he was the last one in our net other than me, I would have
 SH> been quite willing to oblige him.

Ok, if those means of contacting other nodes is to be accepted, should it
not be contemplated in Policy?
I think yes. And it is the nodes that cannot be contacted through this
network the ones to put forward the proposed changes to Policy. That way we
all, and prospective nodes, know what to do and what to expect if we want
to contact any other node.
That is freedom.

 FTD>> Can't dial those letter or numbers. The text refers to phone
 FTD>> numbers ... obviously.

 SH> I would suggest that you obtain the text and read it for yourself.  It
 SH> cannot and does not refer to telephone numbers.  Only Regional
 SH> Independents who are IP only need be listed as "hold" and
IP nodes which
 SH> have a static IP and are in a Net may use their IP in the
"number" field.

__________cut___________
I'd suggest you re-read FTS-5000 again.  Note the following copied from
that document:
===================
Pvt --
         Defines a private node with unlisted number.  Private nodes
         are only allowed as members of local networks.
Hold --
         Defines a node which is temporarily down,or  is a region/zone
         independent node which is reachable via IP only. Mail may be
         sent to it and is held by its host or coordinator.
_________cut____________

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


 FTD>> Ah, it is said:   you need an internet connection to contact a
 FTD>> Fidonet node.

 FTD>> Now that that is clearly defined, this is not Fidonet anymore but
 FTD>> what is known as an "ensalada rusa" ...

 SH> You will have to explain what an "ensalada rusa" is

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

 SH> but did you not know that the Internet was already in use for
 SH> moving interzonal netmail and echomail in the early 1990s?

Yes.
So what?

If this network can comprise snailmail, disquette-mail, voicemail, faxmail,
modem-mail, netmail, echomail, and even IP-email and also telepathic-mail,
plus any other types of mail still to come, it is my preposterous belief
that those things should be clearly stated in Policy. And in a way that any
layman in communications can understand. Anda that whatever nodelist is
distributed can accomodate all nodes of the network without having to
resort to various lists and dig out dubious technical sentences from
technical docs.
Other than that this network is not global and cannot be called one network.

 SH> My node has been in the nodelist for over 12 years and only
 SH> became exclusively IP a year or so ago but I was piching up
 SH> my net's mail via the Internet by 1995.

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

 FTD>> Sorry Steven, but that is not evolving.

 SH> I've read your views about the Internet and simply note that some are
 SH> exaggerated and others are misleading.

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

 SH> While those are are your opinions, views like yours have not
 SH> stopped from Internet shopping and Internet banking.

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


 SH> But then unlike you, I sit on the Board of Directors of an ISP
 SH> and have spent years studying the world of electronic commerce.

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

 SH> Incidentally, I have also worked in an area of law which
 SH> convinced me years ago that telephone communications were not
 SH> particularly secure.
 SH> They are likely less secure now after September 11, 2001.

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

 SH> But to get back to the point,

Yes, please.

 SH> the evolution of a network from one which was POTS based and
 SH> expensive (you would not have liked to pay my long
 SH> distance bills before I found an Internet feed for my net's
 SH> echomail) to one which is efficuent and relatively cheap is
 SH> evolution.

Cheap?  You mean in the places where it is available and in the places
where it is considered cheap ... :?   That is not the whole planet!
And we are talking about a network which claims to be global. Where is the globality?
?DSL in the Magreb is cheap?  Will superdeveloped countries install large
servers for free and donate tens of thousands PVI boxes in the countries
that have one washing machine per 100 people so they can communicate with
each other and the world?

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

 SH>> You might consider waking up and smelling the coffee.  The
 SH>> future of Fidonet is not in POTS nodes but in IP nodes and the
 SH>> sooner you started

 FTD>> What an insistence in taking for granted that objections to
 FTD>> something means complete disapproval!

 SH> I've seen nothing in Michiel's comments which shows he has any concerns
 SH> about the interests of IP-only nodes.

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

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

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

 FTD>> As if we were all blind ... as well  };)

 SH> But aren't you keeping your eyes half-closed?

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



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

Felipe  :)

--- Fastecho 1.45/GED/Fd 2.12