PE> Please tell me the difference between a node and a hub.

BL> To me, a hub is a central node feeding several other nodes.

PE> I feed John Tserkezis, Dave Hatch, and indirectly, David Drummond
PE> and Teddy. Until a month or so ago I was feeding someone from WA too.

BL> No... you are fed *by* Dave Hatch, who then feeds the rest.

Poor old Bob, our outgoing messages get fed to Dave.

BL> I don't know about John... is he connected to the net *through* you?

Thats what he said dorko.

BL> I use it to distinguish from a BBS such as yours,
BL> which is out on the end with only one feed.

Pity you fuck up completely when you do.

PE> You'd probably say the same thing about John Tserkezis,
PE> who feeds me, and feeds Ted Harrison (I think).

BL> Yes... that is the way I differentiate a node from a hub.

Soorree, you dont get to specify what constitutes a hub.
PARTICULARLY when you clearly know sweet fuck all about it.

BL> There is no need for us to become nodes to make an
BL> AVT-net work. We can do it quite easily as points.

PE> Not as easily as nodes. The software is set up for
PE> nodes, e.g. remember all the problems we had with SEENBYs.

BL> As I said in another message, I was looking at the worst-case
BL> situation where AVT is dumped by everyone on the net for content.

Pity that says sweet fuck all about the point/node question.

And it cant happen anyway, Fido doesnt actually work like that. Poor old Bob.

BL> In such a situation, there would be pressure on any node
BL> who chose to carry it unless that node was the AVT hub.

Pigs arse there would.

BL> The technical problems can be solved, especially in a small net.

Pity you dont actually have a fucking clue what they are tho.

BL> 2. We can move mail on the Internet.

PE> That serves a lot of purpose I don't think.

BL> I expect that in 12 months, *all* of us will be connected to a provider,

Quite possibly.

BL> and that the Internet will be a cheap way to move large amounts of mail.

Pity that AVT aint a 'large amount of mail' and in fact is HEAPS
cheaper to move it at STD rates by dialup phone that via the internet.
To say nothing of the actual time taken, apart from the cost.

BL> Do you expect something different?

Yes. You havent got a clue when moving mail via the internet
makes sense. It ISNT necessarily useful for something like AVT.

BL> 3. We can set up our own net with only
BL> one feed to Fido so that no AVT is carried.

PE> What's wrong with Fidonet?

BL> Nothing much at present, but there are two unfortunate trends...

Nope.

BL> 1.  As more defect to the Internet Fido shrinks and becomes less of a net

Pity that thats completely and utterly irrelevant to the movement of AVT.
We managed fine a year or few ago, when the numbers were rather lower.

BL> and more of a backbone with just a few hubs carting most of the mail.

Its ALWAYS been like that dorko. Its like that because it makes
sense to do that to minimise the links done at time charged rates.

BL> I think this trend will continue.

Bit hard between say Sydney and Melburg where there is
already primarily one or two moving the mail Bob. Poor old Bob.

And it says sweet fuck all about what WE should do WRT AVT ANYWAY. The
ONLY time it makes the slightest difference to us is if it stops moving
to a place it currently moves to and we choose to replace that line.

BL> 2.  The hubs are under pressure to censor mail,

Pigs arse they are.

BL> and with an area like AVT it is probably easier to just dump us.

And if they do, who gives a shit anyway ?  No need for headless chicken mode.

BL> This has happened already.

Nope.

PE> The message I am putting through here is that all
PE> nodes are individuals. There's no-one "in charge".
PE> You can do what you want, no matter who you are.

BL> But it's changing.

Nope, Bob is fantacising from utter ignorance as usual.

BL> One of my pet ideas is Anarchy,

And your main practice is this sort of public
masturbation. With any luck you'll go blind.

BL> and I was immediately attracted to Fido as a working model of anarchy.

And if we choose to move AVT ourselves,
its even more anarchic than now. Poor old Bob.

BL> It seems to me that it is not as anarchical as it was.

It can be, if we dont bother to use the main mail movers.
Even you should have noticed that thats how the LOC* stuff
moves. There are however advantages in AVT being different.

BL> It's not much use me setting up as a node
BL> to move AVT if the person I feed censors it.

Pity there is no one doing that. Poor old Bob.

BL> We would end up having to set up our own AVT-net,

You can do that anytime, plenty have done just
that. Not with your crackpot point approach tho.

BL> and it we are going to do that, it seems to me that
BL> it would be better done properly... as a separate net.

Poor old Bob. Hasnt even noticed that there are DOZENS of those,
and its trivial to do if there is a good reason to do that.

PE> If you think there is a more reliable feed than Dave, I'd be
PE> amused to hear about it. I am connected to Dave as a special favour.

BL> A special favour? Why does this not engender confidence in me?

PE> He is the largest source of echomail in Australia.

BL> This is what I mean. Fido is supposed to be a net, so
BL> that if a node fails, the rest of the net carries the load.

Nope, poor old Bob.

BL> But it is *not* a net if taking out one node can wipe out 90% of the mail.

You havent got a fucking clue what constitutes a net. Poor old Bob.

You are actually talking about a PARTICULAR TYPE OF NET.

BL> I don't know what you mean. Of course
BL> the technology exists; it runs Fido now.

PE> No it doesn't. You only ever get echomail from ONE source in Fidonet.

BL> Does that apply to *every* node? It can't do... surely? If that's
BL> true, it's not a net at all, just *one* hub and in-line feed from
BL> there. There *have* to be some nodes with more than one source.

Sorry, you havent got a fucking clue what constitutes a net. Poor old Bob.

BL> I was looking at the worst case when Fido gives us the arse:

PE> Fido gives who the arse? The echo or my node number? First of all,
PE> "Fido" (consisting of 36000 nodes), doesn't give an echo the arse
PE> until all 36000 nodes agree to give it the arse. That includes me,
PE> Poe Lim, Teddy, David Drummond.

BL> You just told me you have *one* source... until he cuts your
BL> feed. I don't think you knbow what you are talking about, Paul.
BL> You're telling me there are 36000 nodes all connected in a
BL> giant daisy chain... all of them with only *one* source?

Poor old Bob. So ignorant he doesnt even realise he knows fuck all. As usual.

PE> And like I said, make it 4AM and you can become a
PE> node yourself, and not have to struggle with software
PE> not designed with points tranferring mail in mind.

BL> Why do you think I have been learning to program?
BL> A lack of software is no longer a problem to me, is it?

Pity about the massive problem between your ears tho. No cure for that.

Too stupid to even noticed that the CURRENT software will do that fine and has
been written to do that and is used by 36K nodes already etc. Poor old Bob.
@EOT:

---