Yo! BUD:
Saturday June 07 1997 03:45, BUD JAMISON wrote to BILL CHEEK:
 ->> Who cares?  They're all over the Internet.  That's all I said.  I
 ->> didn't say WHAT they were doing...........
 BJ> My point, that they AREN'T writing software, most have gone back to
 BJ> 'real' jobs, writing apps for databases, or designing web pages, or in
 BJ> one 'infamous' case, RUNNING an ISP.  If they had been GOOD programmers
 BJ> from the start, meeting deadlines and getting all their promises INTO
 BJ> code, they'd still be programming today.  they're not.
That may well be.  My point is that they vacated FidoNet.  They didn't meet 
deadlines and did not make good on their promises.  The underlying details 
aren't at issue aside from WHY.....and in most cases, these developers had 
raked and skimmed FidoNet for all they could until the pickings got lean.  
Then they vamoosed.  Age old story.  Remember the CB BOOM years of 1974-1980? 
 CB got picked pretty clean, too.  So has scanning and shortwave now.
 ->> It is a rank amateurish stab at a comma-delimited ASCII file.  Take t
 ->> field, fer instance.....in one case it says Zone; in another, Region,
 ->> another still, Host.....followed by DOWN.........  In fact, the
 ->> first three fields are rank and can't be processed to any meaning by
 ->> a REAL database manager.
 BJ> But it WORKS.  Like Fido echomail does..
Sure it works.  But not well.  It just works within a narrow definition.  And 
requires very specialized (and old) software to make it work.  It could be 
made better and processable by a wide variety of software.  All...without 
changing the format of the standard comma-delimited ASCII file.  I accept 
that much of it.  But it needs definition and standardization.....structure.
Do you remember what nodelist processing was like on an XT or 286?
 BJ> Not everyone wants or NEEDS multitasking or 128 megs of ram or a
 BJ> cablemodem Internet connection.
Who cares?  The only persons who can speak for their needs is their own 
derned selves.  Not you and not me.  Except for ourselves, individually.
 BJ> Sure, they're NICE, but not necessary, and most users have other
 BJ> things they need to spend $$ on, and they can't take deductions for
 BJ> the latest Pentium II system as a business expense.
Why are you speaking for others?  How do YOU know what MOST users need?
 BJ> Those people still use Fido, and will until it disappears.
Some will, sure.  That's cool.
 BJ> Bill, your attitude is elitist, and exclusive.
Ohhh noooo it isn't.  Read on, MacDuff.
 BJ> I'd rather be INclusive, like still allowing 300 baud connects, if
 BJ> someone wanted to use that slow a modem.  I give them a certain
 BJ> amount of time on-line, WHAT they doo with it or how fast they
 BJ> connect isn't of consequence to me.
Sure it's not.  But it IS of consequence to the other users who have to stand 
in line waiting for that 300-bps anachronism to fumble and fool around 
getting nothing done at all.  You only get 24-hrs a day, Bud.  And that 
applies to each line you have.....so if you have one line, then that 300-bps 
Ancient One will TAKE time away from the others.....needlessly.
There is no excuse for 300-4800 bps connections anymore.  Frankly, there is 
no excuse for 14.4-kbps connects, either, but I will concede that one.  I 
stand hard core on 300-4800 bps connects as being like horses and buggies on 
the freeway.....they're not allowed there, either.....nor pedestrians, 
bicycles, and motor scooters.  I am INclusive of a wide array of relatively 
modern standards.  I am EXclusive of anachronisms that serve only to let the 
extreme minority slow down the vast majority.
As far as Fido goes, I don't give a hoot.  If you want to admit 300-bps 
callers, that's fine by me.  It is your right.  No argument.  I do argue the 
silly, old ways of doing things that are going to ENSURE that Fidonet takes a 
little ride down Oblivion Highway.
Unless things change, it is guaranteed to go the way of 3-holers and last 
years' corncobs and Rears & Sawbuck catalogs.  The trend has been 
established. A year ago, you argued with me that the Nodelist would not 
shrink much after it settled down.
It's still shrinking.....faster than ever....and you know it.  So why?  And 
what is the inevitable result?  And what can be done to stop it?

Bill Cheek ~ E-mail: bcheek@san.rr.com
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team ~ Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------