Text 4355, 144 rader
Skriven 2004-12-27 02:50:26 av FidoNews Robot (2:2/2.0)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:52 [03/07]: Best Of Fidonet
===============================================
=================================================================
                         BEST OF FIDONET
=================================================================

                        Dead echoes
                By Philip Lozier (1:267/169)

 ST> Lastly, I just don't see the point in hubbing or carrying
 ST> echos that haven't
 ST> had traffic in them for a year or longer... It just
 ST> doesn't make sense.

I'm going to agree with you whole heartedly on that... dead echoes
present a very, very bad image of the network as a whole. Users
browsing and finding large numbers of dead weight are presented with a
picture that FidoNet is useless overall, and potential nodes who run
BBS's view FidoNet as primarily dead weight that isn't worth the time
to set up on their systems when many can hook right into QWK networks
with traffic almost instantly, or some FTN networks, without the
aggravation, hassles, disputes, and headaches associated with FidoNet.

It is not a new problem. It has been going on for years, and is -one-
of the contributing factors to the state Fido is in now... not -the-
factor, but definitely one of them.

Arguments go on about who owns echoes... everybody wants to be in
control in some way or another, even the ones who say things shouldn't
be controlled.

How so? The anti-control yellers blat "there should be no control over
echoes in FidoNet, I will do as I please with my echo"... they don't
want control from anybody else so -they- can control it.

Certain mail movers of the past, and present, scream that FidoNet has
no control over echomail distribution, then set terms for distributing
echoes such as e-list requirements, and procedures for user/moderator
disputes, and "agreement" to SLA's so -they- can control it.

Me, me, me... look at me! I'm a honcho! The network couldn't survive
without me! *I* make it happen!

Everybody wants control, and those who want it the most are the ones
who yell the loudest about non-control.

What everybody has missed over the years should be real obvious... in
order for FidoNet to work effectively and in a productive nature, it
has to operate as a cooperative organization. An organization needs to
be organized. Being organized means that procedures, guidelines, and
structure (yup... for those who don't get it... RULES) need to be in
place. It very much lacks that right now, and this, before ANYTHING
else, is the primary reason FidoNet is failing and falling by the
wayside.

Not the internet causing it... the way FidoNet is mainly being
distributed now in many areas proves FidoNet works over the internet.

Newsgroups, which have also been around forever still generate a whole
lot of text based traffic, on that same glittery bells and flashing
lights web hosting system, the same internet being blamed for the
demise of text based forum style messaging, and believe it or not,
looking lately I notice that 80 or 90 or so of some 110 or 120 I
turned on recently just for observation purposes are -NOT- SPAM filled
hate spewing arenas as newsgroups have so often been portrayed and
generate GOOD traffic. They're being added for public access on my BBS
this week. Nope... the internet isn't killing text based forum style
messaging... it is what is keeping it going in venues outside of
FidoNet.

Now... BBS's, networks, and the internet... sorry folks... the
internet hasn't killed that yet either. I am a regular on several
internet based BBS's that have active participation, and funny
thing... some of these carry -multiple- networks of that outdated text
style forum based messaging, and they in some ways put FidoNet to
shame. How? Well... first of all, they don't have hundreds upon
hundreds of echoes taking up space and straining the eyes of users
trying to find areas of interest... WYSIWYG... you choose an area, and
guess what? Is it possible? Yup... you actually see current messages
on the topic mentioned in the description lines. You don't see people
arguing about policy, voting, and who owns areas and the like, because
from what I've seen some of these other networks there is no voting,
the network determines what echoes are distributed under their network
name, and the governing body is who puts them into place and
distributes them. Policy is unchangable other than b y those who
formed and are in charge of the network, and you follow the rules or
are gone.

In my opinion, some of these other nets I have seen are much more
attractive and successful than FidoNet is now... even with their small
list of areas and tiny nodelists compared to FidoNets counterparts,
they are organized neatly and present an image that doesn't make the
public run for the hills, or another network, to participate in, and
the areas they -do- carry have traffic... AND... (is *THIS* possible?)
they have "USERS" posting in areas! Holy cow! Is that still possible?

I notice more and more BBS's carrying multiple networks, but
absolutely no FidoNet, and have asked some SysOps about joining...
from the tone of some of the responses I've gotten I can almost
picture the looks of horror that went onto their faces the second they
saw the word "fidonet" typed in on their system. FidoNet currently has
a very, very bad reputation, and is avoided like the plague by a lot
of BBS SysOps.

Personally, I look forward to the day when the nodelist has shrunk to
a point that only those serious about wanting to have FidoNet remain
operational, and successful once again, remain. It is then that the
listing of echoes will be reduced to a realistic point, traffic wise,
and proportional to the number of nodes and the traffic they produce,
and it is then that the serious minded can develop operational
standards that are beneficial to "the network" as a whole, rather than
the personal, political, or social beliefs of individuals factoring in
an area (operating a viable network) that such beliefs and opinions
have no place influencing. The productive and continuing operation of
the network outweighs the social opinions of the members.

People (nodes) try to approach FidoNet as if it were a country, league
of nations, or some other form of social structure. The only "social"
aspect of FidoNet is the interaction in the echoes. Social issues do
not belong on the background operational level. The issues at the
level of how the network operates and what makes it successful in its
presentation and attractiveness to users should be based purely upon
what is best for the network itself, not what social practices outside
of the network are.

There is more I really want to say, but I've gone on enough about this
for now... I guess its time to start writing some of those articles I
had ideas about. To some, they may find whats been on my mind
interesting... to others, they will "love" me even more than they do
now ;> I am sure that publicly it will be those who will have ever
growing "love" for me that will be spewing their nonsense that has
nothing to do with beneficial operations of the network as a whole,
and the others who I will be getting the more reasonable netmails I
have become familiar with on some of my thoughts... the second group
are the smart ones! They talk to me in netmail about some concepts,
shielded from the comments of idiots who are too blind to understand
the obvious, and where ideas can be exchanged reasonably about the
path that needs to be pursued.

Phil


-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
 * Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)