Text 25165, 62 rader
Skriven 2006-02-10 11:31:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 25152 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: System
==============
Hello Matt,

 >>> If you at least use fidonet.net, you will be okay here too.

 MvdV>> The problem with fidonet.net is (among others) that I can not instruct
 MvdV>> Irex to use it by preference, certainly not for a specific net or
 MvdV>> region. If it finds a hostname in the BBS name field, it will use
 MvdV>> that. It will only use fidonet.net as a last resort.

 > Far be it for me to suggest to someone how to do things, but
 > ever consider the alternatives?  BinkD, for example?

My experience is that whenever I change software to solve a particular problem,
I always get a new problem in return. The new problem may or may not be worse
that the problem I was trying to get rid of...

 > Not as pretty but very reliable

Irex is reliable. It has a few bugs and a few shortcomings. I have learned to
live with them. More troublesome is that is on the verge of becomeing
abandonware. The author is still around, but he declined a nomination ofr a
second term in the FTSC due to lack of time and there has not been an udate in
years, despite the author claiming to be working on it. :-(

 > and that is where the standards that eventually trickle into
 > other software generally originate.

I think the lead has now been taken by our friends in the east. Argus/Taurus is
the one setting the standards now.

 MvdV>> If the fidonet.net method had been universally adopted, it would.

 > It never will be but it will always be utilized by some.

And the confusion will remain...

 MvdV>> The best of those reasons is IMHO that it would put is at the
 MvdV>> mercy of whoever owns the domain.

 > True.  Hopefully we will never get asshole in charge.

Yet, I consider this a serious problem. So serious that I will not use it other
than as a backup. Nor will I advocate it it other than as a backup method.

For it to go wrong, it need not be an asshole to abuse it. Just as likely is
the keeper getting tired of FidoNet and either letting it sleep and not
maintain it or to let it lapse and soemone else - not related to FidoNet - take
it and use it for his own purposes. There is a Canadian Cell phone company
named FidoNet isn't there?

We have seen what happened to fidonet.org and fidonet.net had some hickups in
the not to distant past too.

The basic problem is that FidoNet has no formal status and so the only choice
is to have a "trustee" list it as a private individual. We have seen to many
examples of "trustees" turning bad to make "the glue that holds us together"
depend on a single trustee.

Cheers Michiel

--- Buy Danish
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)