Re: Re: Fidonet => one unizone
  By: Nick Andre to Robert Stinnett on Fri Mar 15 2019 02:18 pm

 > It already "is" automated. My system receives segments from RC's and
 > compiles  the Zone 1 segment. That segment is used to create a few different
 > "flavors"  of the Nodelist, and is also passed on to Zone's 2 3 and 4 for
 > them to create  their own listing (out of a technical decision from the
 > 1980's).

My question is why does it have to be so many people involved?  Why can't the
system just process and send it out itself?  Nobody should have to touch,
email, netmail, ftp, sneakernet or anything else segments.  Make it all online
and self-service.

 >
 > There is no central "one person" that does the entire Nodelist. This is part

This is good, as I never think a process should be owned by one person.
However, I'd much rather replace those x-number of persons who are doing this
segment process with automation as well.


 > This automation all runs on the assumption that others are sending me
 > segments with no problems. That is true of any automated system. Garbage in,
 > garbage  out. You send me a good segment, you get a good nodelist. You send
 > me crap,  well, your fix will depend on how drunk/sober I am.

Data validation is part of any good automation system.  Did I get the right
data, in the right format and does it match certain rules?  If not, reject that
data and keep on trucking.  The whole system shouldn't come crashing down or
abend because some bad data got into it.


 > This production runs on a combination of custom-software I wrote for
 > MS-DOS and Windows because it is not possible to run a reliable operation
 > for ZC1 on Linux, not worth risking and no "new software" exists to run an
 > entire ZC operation... period. Some utilities in use date back to the late
 > 1980's.

Is this software available in the open-source world or under a license that
allows others to try and modernize it and bring it into the Linux world?

What happens, if it is a closed-source system, if that person dies or decides
they don't want to have anything to do with it anymore?


 > All of this works here completely automated. Zero babysitting, zero
 > screwups (knock on wood). Zero finger-pointing. Zero segments randomly
 > dropped or mismanaged. No matter how badly the Nodelist Police want that.
 >

That's great -- now it's time to bring that automation to the next level.
Progress.

 > More importantly... Zero experimenting. I am using Fido software and an OS
 > that is proven to be reliable and stable and really no incentive to change
 > or  see any way to improve the operation. D'Bridge runs the entire
 > back-office  operations of Zone 1 and Zone 2; yet its amusing to see people
 > comment about  how things could be magically improved somehow with Linux.
 >
While you may not see any room to improve it, I have found that letting others
examine something can open up a world of opportunities.  Perhaps it is perfect
-- but it is hard to tell unless we get others looking at it and examing it as
well.  I believe in the wisdom of crowds -- while every idea may not be
adopted, good information can be gleemed from others who don't deal with it on
a day to day basis.

 > So to be a good ZC, you need to be extremely technically-competent as well
 > as  have tremendous people skills to work with other RC's and ZC's. None of
 > this  is possible unless you have a solid understanding and appreciation of
 > both history, cultural difference and patience and not be so quick to
 > dismiss  things to start a new idea or concept.

I believe the best leaders in the world are those that challenge us to think
outside the box.

 >
 > More importantly, dealing with know-it-alls, Linux zealiots and everyone
 > eager to point out the most trivial of problems; even by a "probationary
 > Sysop" who  can't seem to figure out how to get a node number let alone send
 > a Netmail.

Kind of hard to send a netmail without having a number.  Pretty hard to get a
number when the website that has the information was last updated 10 years ago.

Look, I'll be honest here, based on what I've seen, witnessed and read I don't
have much faith in the future of Fidonet.  That is a pretty harsh statement to
make, but the politics nowadays seem 10x worse than they were back in the 90s
-- and I thought that to be quite impossible.  The network is highly segmented,
or what is left of it, and it seems that no matter which way people turn they
just hit blocks of resistance.

I believe that the future at this point is with the Othernets and perhaps even
complete abandonment of FTN type networks in favor of new technology or a
re-use of another technology already out there.  I'm not 100% convinced the
technologies of FTN are really applicable in the modern BBS/forum world.

There is a growing movement of people who want to connect with smaller, online
communities and a BBS -- in whatever form that may be -- could very well be the
answer for them.  It may not a BBS as we all know them, or remember them, but I
do believe there is at least some room for growth both in number of
users/systems and technology.

Someone, or perhaps several, said that I should write a FIDONEWS article about
it -- so I am, and will submit it and we'll see if it gets anywhere.  So I can
at least say I tried my best.  That's all any of us can do.
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Linux