Text 34869, 277 rader
Skriven 2016-07-26 13:59:34 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Allen Prunty (6226.fidonews)
Ärende: Trying to understand...
===============================
Hello Allen,

On Monday July 25 2016 16:29, you wrote to me:

 AP> So I am clear the only way you know what echos are available is by
 AP> using a %list from your hub's areafix?

"Hub" is an outdated concept dating from that days of hyrarchical distribution.
Same for "uplink" and "downlink". I do not have a hub, I do not have an uplink.
All my links except for my own pint are links with peers.

When I want to know what is available from a specific link, I query its
areafix.

Of course there is always word of mouth.

 AP> That may work well and good for you but let's say that we have users
 AP> who are interested in Sailing for example and you have an echo called
 AP> SALING over there that would be enjoyed over here in Z1 by people who
 AP> are also interested in SAILING.

I am not a favourite of hypotheticals. I have no users, I have no BBS. I
thought I had already explained that metered local calls killed the BBS here.
Users are a virtually extinct species here. The last was seen in the wild was
in 1996 or so.

I also do not carry an echo tagged SAILING.

 AP> How are we in Z1 to know that you have a sonderful sailing echo over
 AP> there?

Since I do not have such an echo, you won't.

There are a few echos that originated tmy system though. One is a meeting pint
for Z2 point list keepers. It is of no interest to Z1 sysops and it is almost
dead anyway since there are few points left and there is not much to discuss
about point lists any more.

Z1 sysops do not seem tpo have a problem  finding the other two despite the
fact that it is not in the echolist. No, I am not going to publish the tags
here, lest some joker finds it a good idea to hijack the listings.

 AP> Perhaps your hubs organize their Areafix section a lot better than we
 AP> do. Perhaps you have a robust system of updating from peer to peer
 AP> that way that we dont.

My tosser has the option of forwarding areafix requests to an "uplink". I have
disabled that option. It was usefull in the POTS era with hyrachical
distribution. These days in the Fido over IP era it costs nothing to create an
extra link. So let those who want an area that is not on my system but on one
of my links, get it from that link themselves.

I do not carry all echos. I just carry what I find interesting for myself. I am
the only user on my system, so why should I carry all echos. Carrying echos
just for the sake of others makes no sense in the age of Fid oven over IP and
the FidoWeb.

 AP> I won't deny that a lot of software in use over here in the Unted
 AP> States has been updated in a long time.  Husky, a program you guys use
 AP> over there, seems to be much more up to date than most of what is in
 AP> use in Z1.

My tosser is Fmail.

 AP> BTW Your FTS repository is very nice.

Credit where credit is due. The hosting is done by Alexey Vissarionov, Fred
Riccio is the webmaster, I just provide the files.

 AP> Regardless, the thing that bothers me the most is I am not limited to
 AP> one language.

That is nothing special around here...

 AP>   I have many friends who speak other languages and am
 AP> not afraid to carry echos in German, Spanish, Italian, or any other
 AP> language I speak.

There are some German echos. Italian is probably all dead, there is one node
left in Italy, I have not seen any messages from him in years. Spanish? There
may be a few. Don;t expect much from a handful in Spain and two or three in Z4.

If you really want flow in a language other than English, you have to learn
Russian and get you software to handle Cyrillic. I managed the latter, I cab
display and type Cyrillic. I tried to learn Russian but that is a bridge too
far. Languages were never my forte, but I might have managed when I was young.
Now I am too old.

 AP> I would love to see what is available in Z2 and Z3 for all that
 AP> matter, but I feel that it's veiled in secrecy.

The sad reality is that - except in Russian - there is not all that much. Most
languages have fallen way beyond critical mass. The reason I am here writing in
English and not in a local area writing in Dutch, is that there are not enough
Dutch Fidoians left to keep the conversation going. That goes for most other
languages found in Europe.

 MV>> No it does not. It does not say there MUST be an echolist.

 AP> Is this website accurate?

I don't know.

 AP>   Is it part of fidoweb?

If it is a website, it is not part of the Fidoweb. The Fidoweb consists of
Fidonet nodes. 
 AP> Again only posting this as this is what is out there... this is also
 AP> part of the echopol1.txt document that's been floating out there.

Here you can find some documents.

http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/policys

 AP> Again I'm not trying to use this to start something but there has been
 AP> many who have thrown echopol1 at us as a defence or justification for
 AP> how they want things...

As stated before, it os almost 30 years old. Most of it does not apply any more
in today's Fidonet.

 AP> yet it does state in the words "echolist" that some are to be kept by
 AP> the NEC.

Sorry, some nets still have them, but here in my net and region we no longer
have NECs and RECs. No use for them any more. No more ZEC either.

 AP> --------------------------------------------

 AP> http://www.junik.lv/~fido/eng/echopol.htm

 AP>  3.4 Duties Of Net EchoMail Coordinator

I know what it says. It no longer applies. With just ONE net 280 echo left,
there is nothing to coordinate for a NEC. We don't carry hats just for the sake
of carying hats.

 AP> And I must add there's a lot of good practices to be found in that
 AP> website as well... but they are just that Good practices, as you point
 AP> out Policy4 is 30 years old and there's been a lot of changes.
 AP> Evolution is a good thing if we -all- keep up with the changes.

I do not know if it is a good thing, Fidonet has not so much evolved as
declined. But it is the reality.

 AP> One thing about the Fidoweb is no one in Zone 1 seems to know a lot
 AP> about it. How it works, or what  it's structure is.

You probably asked the wrong persons. Z1 is still full of NAB fans, they want
nothing to do with the Fidoweb. But there are also a lot of Z1 sysops that
participate.

 AP> up with something that may work better... but none of us knows the
 AP> theroies of how it works.  It's not something readily discussed here
 AP> in Z1.  There isn't a FIDOWEB echo.... or is there???

OMG.. not amother dead echo. No, as AFAIK there is no FIDOWEB echo. There is no
need and it is a lot easier to create an echo than to get rid of it when it is
dead. And dead it will soon be because there is nothing to discuss.

There is no list of Fidoweb nodes. That would go against the idea of "no
cebtralisation" There alsois no "Fidoweb echolisty". weven if we wantedm there
could not be one, as many Fidoweb sysops just cherrypick what they want.

 AP>  How are we to know?

I already gave you the lionk to thr Fidonews article that I wrote three years
ago. All there is to know is in that article.

 MV>> And yet, a couple of month ago, you re-emerge from nowhere. You
 MV>> come storming in like a bull in a china shop, telling us you will
 MV>> "fix things". That Allen, is not a good recipe to win a
 MV>> popularity contest.

 AP> You know there's an old appalacian saying out there... sometimes it
 AP> takes a whirlwind to get some change going...

Most whirlwinds are destructive.

What makes you think we are waiting for a change?

 AP>  Perhaps what needs to be blown around is over here in Z1 not Z2 or
 AP> even Z3.  Perhaps things -need- to be stirred up to get people
 AP> thinking about things...

Hmmm...

 AP> I hope that you are seeing why some of us have some appreciation for
 AP> our echolist... it's nice to have a catalog to look at to see what we
 AP> can add to our systems to enhance the experiences for our users.

I have no users. How many do yiu have? Real users, not the ones that took al
lok and were gone again, but regular users that log in more often than once a
week and that actually take part in the discusiion? be honest about it, give a
realistic number.

 AP> And it may actually get chat going between the zones with some better
 AP> content echos.

Get your head out of the cloud and your feet back on the ground. The reason
there ar hardly any content echos any more is because they have all fallen
below critical mass. There are not enough of us left. Simple as that.

If I have a technical problem with my Honda VF750F motor cycle, I do not bother
to ask in Fidonet. I doubt there is anyone else with a Honda VF750F present. I
just go to the forum dedicated to the VF750F. There I find fellow VF750 owners.
There I can find answers.

Same for HAM related issues. For all intents and purposes the HAM echo is dead.
Some robot posts bulletins there that are of no interest to me. I have removed
it from my system. When I have HAM matters to discuss, I go elsewhere.

SCIENCE Echo, same story. All the scientists are gone. Removed it from my
system.

 AP> Right now All we have going on is our awful embarrassing political
 AP> discussions. It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks the USA has
 AP> lost our minds.

Even for that I do not need Fidonet...

 MV>> If you do not wat to be my enemy then drop this missionary
 MV>> attitude. Right now you are the same pain in the ass as Joehava's
 MV>> wittnesses banging at my door attempting to convert me to their
 MV>> religeon. They at least have the

 AP> I will try if you try to see some things from my viewpoint.  I feel
 AP> like we are moving forward now to at leat building a bridge... not
 AP> burnign one.

 AP> BTW... If you have a problem with JW's ... tell them that you are
 AP> "Disfellowshipped" that means that you have been shunned from the
 AP> Church and they will leave immediately

Thanks for th etip, but as long as they go away when I tell them the truth:
"not interested" i do not neeed it.

BTW, is there a magic incantation to make the echolist fanatics go away?

 MV>> outweigh the cons. We do not want to turn back the clock, We do
 MV>> not need an echolist, we do not want an echolist.

Yes, I know Thom Lacosta is gone. But the integrity of his succesoor has been
tested and he has failed the test. WIth constructions like that it is nt a
question of "if", it is a question of "when" it will be abused.

And we do not want top down echolist distribution any more either. After the
Fidonews coup we deiced that no single indiviual or smallgropu of individual
shal ever again be in a position to pull such a putch. So no more
cnetralisation. Not ever. Hence the Fidoweb.

 AP> Then if you have a better system that may actually work better for us
 AP> then please share it... unless you got a secret book of Michiel over
 AP> there (Just Kidding)... seriously it works both ways.  I think you
 AP> guys have heard enough on why we like our echolist... now tell us how
 AP> -we- can survive without one.

As I told you, we in Z2 have been doing without one for two decades. Your
reluctance to part with your echolist carries the signs of someone with an
additcion. I am afraid I can not offer much help in shaking iff addictions...

 AP>  I'm totally willing to listen with an
 AP> open mind... I ask, in fairness, for everyone else to do the same.

 MV>> If you do not understand it, bad luck for you. I have no need for
 MV>> you to understand it, I just want you to drop it. I do not want
 MV>> to be converted.

 AP> Then it will be dropped further if you don't want to explain it.

There is nothing more to explain than I already did.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)