Re: Re: Fidonet => one unizon
  By: Nick Andre to Dan Cross on Thu Mar 21 2019 01:08 pm

 > On 21 Mar 19  09:42:33, Dan Cross said the following to David Drummond:
 >
 > DC> Seriously: What would happen if a group of interested people just
 > DC> created their own "fidonet" and ignored the existing network?  Would
 > DC> anyone other than a couple of people notice?
 >
 > I'm not sure I understand. If you mean use the Fidonet software to start up
 > their own network away from Fidonet, its already been done for decades, they
 > are called Othernets. Fsxnet, Dovenet, Micronet are excellent examples.

Yeah, everyone understands that.

 > If you mean just branch off and establish your own Fidonet structure; sure
 > but all that it does is further cause a divide and animosity by leaving
 > behind people that you just can't get along with. Effectively you will have
 > "two Fidonets" and both will have fun trying to explain why the other
 > exists. And right back to zone-wars, you-suck and my-way-is-the-best-way
 > troll fests.

Well, since the people left behind can't figure out how to
update a DNS RR, the difference between a registrar or a name
server, or how to update a web page that hasn't been touched
in 15 years, don't understand Unix and are still using DOS in
2019, I don't think it'll matter: they won't be able to
communicate outside of their ever shrinking bubble and no one
would be looking for them so the issue of their existence just
won't come up.

If it came to pass, they could continue hashing out the same
tired arguments they've been been fighting over for the last
2 or 3 decades on Legacy Fidonet, while other people actually
got some utility out of Fidonet.  Let go of the name, embrace
the legacy status for the old software that can't be updated
and keep chugging on along your merry ways.

The explanation for why the legacy Fidonet exists, if it ever
even came up, would be simple: "they couldn't get over it and
wouldn't let go, so everyone else moved away."

Meanwhile, everyone else could standardize on zone 0, net 0,
region 0, with just the node number being significant.  All
the relevant software could be modified to accept zeros in
the appropriate positions.  Or, if that were impractical, then
pick an arbitrary zone number: 1, 4, or 6 (the latter two
being isomorphic to IP version numbers).

Or come up with a new scheme entirely that doesn't depend on
zones and regions and nets and other artifacts of the PSTN.
That certainly sounds a lot more fun to me than listening to
the same group of naysayers resist change.
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Linux