Volume 5, Number 3 18 January 1988 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief Dale Lovell Editor Emeritus: Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Contributing Editors: Al Arango FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. Copyright 1987 by the International FidoNet Association. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141. The contents of the articles contained here are not our responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them. Everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING received. Table of Contents 1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1 Why all the Hoopla? ...................................... 1 Gateways to the Future, Usenet, FidoNet and Public Acce .. 4 ALTERNET - It was a nice try, guys ....................... 13 DOCUMENTATION FOR OZONE.EXE .............................. 15 Patches For Quick Basic 4.0 .............................. 16 2. WANTED ................................................... 19 3. NOTICES .................................................. 20 The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 20 Latest Software Versions ................................. 20 FidoNews 5-03 Page 1 18 Jan 1988 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Why all the Hoopla? Yup, I am part of the "enemy". I find that all the hoopla and ado about AlterNet is just what it sounds like, a bunch of noise. I "joined" AlterNet to keep in touch with some people I had typed messages to over the last 3 years (I have been around that long, yes) and the instant it became known I was immediately shunned by some people with whom I had been communicating simply because I chose to also talk to others in another network. Never mind my reasons for joining AlterNet, hang me cause I joined it. Never mind that my reasons were neither political nor anti-IFNA, simply tie the noose tighter because I "defected". This alone is reason enough for any sane person to leave. People who will not listen to any reason why. This attitude has been the major factor in my decision to also "take my ball and go home". I hold no hatred or ill feelings for anyone in FidoNet. In fact I wish FidoNet luck and continued growth. I forsee a lot of problems in that everyone wants to make IFNA a toothless tiger (which it is now, so I guess they have suceeded). I wanted IFNA to be one thing and one thing only. A governing body elected by the "line sysops" who would have the authority to take whatever action necessary to remedy sticky problems in the net. AlterNet would have no need for being if everybody would sit back and remember one simple premise of FidoNet, co-operation plain and simple. So maybe you do not like the way something is done, big deal! Is is going to kill you to simply forget it and continue on? Is is going to do you bodily harm to say "Ok there has got to be a better way BUT until that way comes along then this is "as good as it gets" (to quote a commercial). I think not. As I stated before my reasons were not political in nature. While I disagree with the way IFNA is now, I have NEVER said a word against it since right now this is "as good as it gets". I am a firm beleiver in the old addage of not bad-mouthing an organization as long as I am a member of that group. Outsiders may bad-mouth away, but insiders should always show a "united front" and not bite the hand that feeds them. Yes you are being fed. You are having your "habit" of telecommunications fed by FidoNet. Yet with all the "good things" FidoNet has done over the past few years, this latest item in the "bad things" column has overshadowed everything else in my mind. Look back, who ran the net in 1984/85? Ken Kaplan, Ben Baker, Thom Henderson, Tom Jennings, and others. These people poured everything they had into FidoNet only to have it turn on them and bite them. FidoNews 5-03 Page 2 18 Jan 1988 Tom Jennings gave us the means (via FIDO ?) to even have a FidoNet in the first place. He made it PD even though he didn't have to, he did. Now there are almost 2500 nodes in the net. Back when it was still just Fido and SEADOG there were 1200 nodes in the net (or there-abouts). Shareware was the "rage" but shareware didn't work. Tom now SELLS Fido software. It is no longer the free bbs of the future. It is now the finely tuned commercial package he markets to "make a few dollars" Ben Baker wrote the nodelist format for us. The same format that, for the most part is exactly the same as it was in 1984 when it all started. Ben automated the process. I can remember when FidoNet nodelists would have to be "updated" by hand. Try that with the current nodelist (and bring your lunch). Ben didn't charge a dime for his software either. And still doesn't. Ken Kaplan ran the net from St Louis simply because TJ was so busy upgrading Fido. Ken made sure new nodes were welcomed into FidoNet, he answered a LOT of the questions about how to do this and how to do that or who to contact to find out how. He was in essence every help node all rolled into one. He built this net (along with the others) from the ground up. And he is still active it it, though maybe not as much as before. Thom Henderson was the publicity arm of FidoNet. He wrote the news (mostly himself) for about a year or more and distributed this sometimes monsterous file from his offices. He dedicated a machine (back then not a cheap item) strictly to news and distribution of same. He dedicated a business line (in NJ again not a cheap item) to a hobby. and most of all he gave of his time, as did all the others who made FidoNet great. Without these individuals there simply would be NO FIDONET. There would be no echomail, no electronic email outside of a pay service like CompuServe or the Source etc. There would be far less telecommunications junkies in this world and far more money in ma bells pockets from all the long distance calls to "log onto a bbs" Now if associating with these great folks (and not all of them are in AlterNet) is treason or selfishness, then I am a traitor. I am selfish. And YES I am in AlterNet for these reasons. If you find this offensive then look at the FidoNet nodelist and locate the various Coordinators and help nodes. Would you say they are "trying to help?" Would you say the Echo coordinators are "trying to help?" Would you even go so far as to say that the various help nodes are selfless to a fault. I would. Now I guess I will simply have to do as you say and "take my ball and go home", right? You tell me what I should do. I want to maintain contact with my "electronic" friends in BOTH nets, however those in FidoNet are slamming me for trying. I want to maintain meaningful discussions on a variety of topics. FidoNews 5-03 Page 3 18 Jan 1988 Not don my Nomex undies and crank up the flamethrowers. I want to have FUN, not wonder who I will offend next by stating my position. Tough decision, you bet it is. I would be giving up a lot to dump either of the "nets", yet like most of the other AlterNet sysops, I too am a burnout, I too am 1 flame away from "pulling the plug" and I too am tired of all the fighting, name calling, and back-stabbing going on. If I have to give up some friends simply because they will not assiciate with me because of who I am friends with, I will give them up. Therefore FidoNet be forwarned that I will dump FidoNet and all it's BS if I get just one more flame. That is the reason for the "anonymous writer" theme behind this. Not because I want to hide who I am but because I do not want to quit. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 4 18 Jan 1988 Gateways to the future: Concerning FidoNet, Usenet, and the Future of Public Access Wide Area Networking -- Doug Thompson, 221/162 It's New Years (actually a little past) and the time for a review of the past 365 days and some forecasts for the next. I initially sat down to write this the week *before* the Alternet announcement in Fidonews. That event, it seems, has suddenly eclipsed most other discussions and brought a number of major issues into sharp relief. I suppose thanks is due the Alternet folks -- and I can't help wonder if this might not be part of their intent? The very fact of a having a choice of a technically similar alternate network provides an impetus for FidoNet to come to grips with what it is, and what it is not. In an area of such phenomenal growth as wide area computer networking, we must wrestle just as seriously with what we are to become, and what we wish not to become. There are three things I want to talk about: 1) Growth -- the Future 2) Usenet Gateways 3) Expanded public Services 4) Our Financial Base 1) Growth rates First some numbers. The oldest nodelist I have is from May 2, 1986. That's 19 months ago. (from time of writing, Dec. 86) May 2 1986 789 June 19 1987 1523 + 13 mos Dec 18 1987 2275 + 6 mos Avg monthly growth rate May '86 June 87= 56.46 nodes per month Avg monthly growth rate June - Dec 86= 125.33 nodes per month Over the past 6 mos FidoNet has grown at the rate of 125.33 nodes per month. If this rate continues for the next year, we will see nearly 4,000 nodes in FidoNet by next Christmas. The limited stats here also suggest that the rate of growth more than doubled between May of 86 and December of 87. If that increase in the rate of growth continues, we could conceivably find ourselves with five or six thousand nodes by next Christmas. FidoNet seems to be doubling in size roughly every year. If anyone has more thorough stats drop me a line! Tom Jennings' hobby in 1984 has grown beyond what I imagine were his wildest expectations at the time. It seems to be an idea whose time has come, and is being more widely recognized as a good idea all the time. FidoNews 5-03 Page 5 18 Jan 1988 -- Rapid growth means most of us are relative newcomers -- Growth of this pace inevitably causes strains, and we see lots of those in FidoNet. Having had some academic training in history, I grew accustomed to looking at the "flow" of events over the years rather than simply isolated snapshots. Among other things shown by these stats is that at least half the sysops in FidoNet have been participating less than 18 months. Given that there is a drop-out rate as well as a growth rate, it may be that about half have been participating less than one year and about 75% less than two. That makes the vast majority of us relative newcomers, and our view of FidoNet is short enough to be called a snapshot. But let's try to develop some snapshots into a movie. The figures in use here are rough approximations. We do seem to have an exponential growth curve though. At current growth rates, by 1990, we could well have 30,000 nodes! I am not saying this *will* happen for certain, but I am persuaded at the moment that it is likely to happen. Forces which will encourage continued growth include: - declining costs and increasing capabilities of hardware - better and more user friendly software and interfaces which help non-experts jump in. - recent expansion into new countries and new continents. - self-propulsion: e-mail's value increases with the number of people you can reach. The bigger the net becomes the more the incentive to join. - Gateways to other networks making FidoNet an access point to many other and larger networks. - faster modems which reduce phone bills, making communication cheaper. I want to think about the implications of some of these things. Rapid growth means that we will continue to have a majority of sysops with relatively brief experience in the net. We will remain "amateur" in more ways than one. I want to think about what it means to move from a hobbyist playing with an idea that society at large doesn't understand to the role of an operator in a world-wide computer network which more and more people will be depending on as an important channel of communication. I want to think about the economics of this: who is going to be carrying the cost of this international communication, and who might become interested to try to build a private business around the idea? 2) Usenet Gateways During 1987 a number of FidoNet systems installed software which enables the exchange of mail and echoes with another and much larger computer network, Usenet. FidoNews 5-03 Page 6 18 Jan 1988 Usenet consists of about 10,000 machines around the world. Technically, Usenet is very similar to Fidonet and therefore gateways are not all that difficult. There are vast differences in the character of the two nets however. Hardware in Usenet tends to be large computers owned by universities or businesses. While there are a small number of AT class IBM micros involved, for the most part the machines are DEC Vax minis. Owners are commercial or educational institutions and the operators are employees of those institutions. The users are usually members of those institutions. Unlike FidoNet, the communication work of these computers is often a very small part of the computer's purpose. The computers usually have other reasons to exist, and the communication work is incidental. To the extent that the owners support Usenet participation, they do so because of a perceived benefit for their employees and/or students. There is a lot of overlap in the type of people attracted to the two nets, and a great commonality of purpose. The major difference is that while the typical FidoNet sysop is an owner-operator who is really accountable to no one (except to be able to receive mail), the typical Usenet system administrator is an employee of an institution responsible to the accountants and managers for the system use. He is also very much more responsible to his users, they pay him to keep the news and mail flowing. In these respects there is quite a difference, FidoNet consisting of "free-agents", paying their own way, and Usenet consisting of "corporation men" who do it as a job (although they may well greatly enjoy it). Where a FidoNet sysop pays for his mail (usually) a Usenet user or operator is rarely personally charged. The institution absorbs the costs as part of the overhead. Another major difference is that Usenent is big. Some 10,000 machines, the smallest of which are on par with the largest FidoNet systems. Usenet also has gateways to other networks, including ArpaNet, Bitnet, CSNet, and other national and regional networks around the world. The total number of users who have access to e-mail on all these networks is very hard to estimate, but I am pretty sure it is in the millions when you consider all the nets to which Usenet gateways. Accustomed to gatewaying to other networks, Usenet sites generally seem reasonably receptive to installing FidoNet gateways. The perception generally seems to be that the value of Usenet increases in proportion to the number of e-mail addresses that can be reached. Fidonet represents some tens of thousands of addressable users, and is therefore worthwhile. My experience in "grovelling" for a news and mail feed from a Usenet site at a local university illustrates some other issues which are probably of general relevance. I was aided in my effort FidoNews 5-03 Page 7 18 Jan 1988 by the fact that I personally knew some of the Usenet operators and had other campus affiliations. The major concerns of the Usenet people were financial and technical. "How much is this going to cost us?" They wanted to know what kind of controls, if any, there would be on e-mail sent to them for forwarding, on their dime. The second concern was technical reliability; "will your gateway cause us any hassles?" After providing much in the way of personal guarantees, a gateway was approved, although it was clearly pointed out that the approval could be suspended at any time. This raised a number of concerns for me. The first had to do with accounting. If mail was going to be moving through my system in both directions, I had to keep track of how much it was costing me, and how much it was costing the Usenet host. The second concern was my users. If I gave them access to Usenet newsgroups, what kind of problems might arise? There were two concerns about the users. I suppose we've all had problems of naive users not understanding that an echo area is not for private messages to local users. And most of us have experienced the twit problem, a user who is needlessly abusive and enters inappropriate messages. Should such material get into Usenet, I would receive the flak. I found myself in the uncomfortable situation of being personally responsible to tens of thousands of Usenet readers for whatever anyone might do on my system, as well as being responsible for any errors I might make :-). Dealing with Usenet differs from dealing with FidoNet both in scale, and in the level of professionalism expected. Usenet operators are professionals. In dealing with Fidonet they expect a similar professional attitude. Expensive errors are costing not just a few dollars of *personal* money, but corporate or institutional money. An inconvenience can effect hundreds or thousands of people on whose approval the Usenet administrator's *job* depends. Running a gateway stretches the definition of hobby to the limit. Another very critical difference between FidoNet and Usenet is revealed here, the users. FidoNet is accessible to virtually anyone with a terminal and modem. Usenet is only accessible to the public at a very few "public access Usenet" sites. My first networking experience was in Usenet. I was so keen on it, I wanted to extend the capability to everyone, and became interested in creating a public access system. FidoNet nodes running gateway software appeared to be the cheapest way to establish public access to Usenet. A relatively friendly user interface existed in Fido and Opus BBS systems, PD software was available, and the hardware needed was affordable. 3) Financing Some serious difficulties are revealed in opening access to FidoNews 5-03 Page 8 18 Jan 1988 the public. Usenet is free. However, "free", in this context simply means that someone else pays for it. Presently no device exists to charge back to the user the cost of services rendered. This is not because systems cannot charge users on a per message or per hour basis, but because the costs of any given message may be borne by hundreds, even thousands of different systems. A large circulation newsgroup may end up occupying clusters on 10,000 or more hard-disks, and be telephoned to sites all over the world. As in FidoNet, Usenet sites do not generally charge each other for service. At the moment this is quite workable. However, each Usenet site has a ceiling, a ceiling on funds and cpu cycles and disk space for the network. General public access could, if it did become popular, come to swamp the network. This will not happen tomorrow. But, if network growth continues, it is a real possibility. Long term growth and general public access can only be accommodated through a system of financing that allows for some cost recovery when providing telecommunication services to others. At the moment, extending services costs money. There is thus a financial *disincentive* to expanding services. If there were even the slightest financial *incentive*, and the money to buy new boxes, service could be expected to expand more rapidly. I would like to be in a position to "buy into" usenet, rather than beg into it. I'd like to advertise my tiny "public access" system and let it reach capacity. I'd like to be able to earn enough money from that user public to buy more machines and install more phone lines and bigger hard-disks. I'd like to know that in using the services of other systems, in Usenent and in FidoNet I was paying my way *and* making a financial contribution to those other services, and not stuck in a dependency relationship where every message was transferred as a favour. In short I'd like to see the system opened up, and service expanded. This cannot happen under current financing arrangements, where every expansion is a financial burden which must be limited. Reciprocity is basically the name of the network game. Each independent node or site in both networks provides value to others. Some pay more than others, but it is in all our best interests to keep the connections open as best we can. The network's value *is* a function of how many people you can reach . . . up to the saturation point. That saturation point worries me. With continued growth, traffic volume in echo mail (newsgroups in Usenent) will come to exceed the storage and throughput capacity of all but the largest systems. Newsgroups also seem to have a maximum participation rate. When the traffic volume in a newsgroup reaches hundreds of messages per day, it is impossible to keep up without some new kind of sophisticated "screening" software. The best one to date is the moderated "Digest". In this model, a moderator receives all submissions, and compiles them into a digest which is very similar in appearance and size to FidoNews. Unlike FidoNews, FidoNews 5-03 Page 9 18 Jan 1988 Usenet moderators usually cull inappropriate material (and often announce that they have done so). Optimizing the use of resources, and sharing the cost burden of expanded resources, can do much to increase the network capacity with minimum resource allocation. The price of that cooperation is a certain amount of autonomy. A site cannot participate in a wide area cost-sharing plan to operate and manage collective resources without sacrificing a little autonomy. Without that cooperation, however, many economies cannot be realized. With it, the cost of inter-continental e-mail should drop to a few pennies per message. The fee is nearly insignificant to the individual user. The cost to individual gateway and zonegate systems, though, is crushing. I am not the first one to point out that continued growth will require centralized "network" services, rather than simply "site" services. Large machines with large disks and fast modems could be subsidized by the respective networks as store and forward facilities for mail. The use of leased lines and batched processing could bring the cost of reliable net-mail down to the vanishing point. But achieving those savings requires consider- able capital and a lot of labour. Individual sites could then subscribe directly, or groups of sites in a geographic area could pool their resources for a routed link to a central machine. In this manner, a skeletal device would be created whereby the actual costs of providing efficient services could be recovered. It seems obvious that the funding and labour necessary to expand facilities to meet ever-increasing demand will exceed the capacity of individual site and node operators. There would also be a great deal more incentive for operators at every level to provide better service if the bulk of the costs were being borne by a large group of users, rather than the individual operator himself. One other fringe benefit -- based on the experience of Usenet -- an employee responsible to the net for his job is likely to provide a consistently high level of professionalism in network services. It would appear that the next few years will require us to solve these problems one way or another. The only alternative would seem to be to attempt to create a device to carefully limit the size of the network, and restrict access to a select few. While any particular network *could* do this, the public demand for electronic mail is unlikely to abate until virtually every phone line in the world has a telecommunication computer attached to it. Read that last sentence again. A question which concerns me greatly is that of addressing the issue of *organizing* and *financing* a public access e-mail FidoNews 5-03 Page 10 18 Jan 1988 network. There appear to be two possible routes. One is commercial. Where there is a public demand, there will be businesses which attempt to meet that demand. The other, already foreshadowed to some degree in both Usenent and Fidonet, is the idea of a publicly owned, cooperatively managed, self-financing network. The latter differs from the former in a number of ways. While the end-product of the two might be quite similar, the public system is owned by the public, and its owners control it. Instead of subscribers, or customers, the user is a participant -- a citizen of the net, if you will -- rather than a customer of a service industry. A public network could provide a huge scope for volunteer participation. In doing so it would encourage innovation and reduce overall network expenses. Both these attributes would not only preserve some of the flavour of the amateur e-mail network we have grown to know and love, but would enable a public network to provide service at a cost well below that which a commercial enterprise would have to charge. The days of FidoNet being a small, exclusive club of dedicated hobbyists are numbered. The network is too good, too popular, too successful. Many who are not computer buffs in any real way now want in in order to *communicate*. It seems to me rather clear that some years down the line there will be an international wide-area networking system which is accessible to anyone for a fee. Either the present telecom using public will create it and keep it under public ownership (while keeping fees to a minimum) or private enterprise will provide it as a consumer service (maximizing profit, of course). -- Public vs. Private is not the same as Fee vs. Free -- Why would a public, co-operatively owned system be better than a commercial one? This slips over into political philosophy, but there are a few things worth considering. 1.) Because it doesn't have to earn a profit, it should be able to provide cheaper service. 2.) Being already owned by the general public, it should be freer of government regulation than a strictly commercial enterprise. 3.) Adverse government regulations will be less likely when the owners of the telecom utility and the voting public are precisely the same people. 4.) Public control of network policy is much more likely to be meaningful under public ownership. 5.) The user, rather than being a consumer whose only power FidoNews 5-03 Page 11 18 Jan 1988 is to not subscribe, becomes a full and equal participant, as active as s/he cares to be. 6.) Continued dependence on a large amount of voluntarism could well not only encourage innovation and development but keep user fees absurdly low. 7.) As the network grows in size, its influence in the computer industry and over government regulation nationally and internationally will also grow. In an age when high technology and regulatory decision-making is more and more removed from the ordinary life of the ordinary citizen, this would counter-balance present tendancies toward technological elitism and dependence on government "experts" to tell us what's good for us. The end-user would have a much larger influence. I guess my bias is out of the bag now :-) I am *very* much aware that many different perspectives exist on the large number of specific matters this paper touches upon. My view is only one, and I'm not sure it is even the best. Too many of the discussions on these matters I've read and participated in seem to occur without an historical overview. I hope this paper can contribute to our thinking about where we are going in terms beyond simply "more of the same". The character of the network will inevitably change with growth, and with changing technology. We do not have the luxury of choosing to keep things just as they are. Events will overtake us and change our network whatever we choose to do, or not do. If a commercial service comes along, for instance, that offers access to news and e-mail cheaper than FidoNet itself, (distinctly possible) what point will there be to an amateur e-mail network? There is no such thing as "free" e-mail. There is only e-mail which you get someone else to pay for, or e-mail which you pay for yourself. Currently, the costs in FidoNet are very un- evenly distributed, and we depend not only on large volunteer efforts, but on large volunteer financial contributions. A big network, paid for only by a few of its most important links, does not strike me as having much potential I cannot begin to take the space to address each of the many reservations I can already hear being expressed. I can offer some points of departure for discussion, though. An International FidoNet co-op, funded by its members, could do two things almost immediately: it could provide cheap central- ized services such as echo-mail and software backbones and zone- gates. It could begin to build an organizational infrastructure to reflect the will of the membership and influence the future of wide-area telecommunication. The latter involves many, many aspects, and could include such things as negotiations with other networks and standard- FidoNews 5-03 Page 12 18 Jan 1988 ization of gateway structures to assure universal access, negotiation with hardware manufacturers concerning standards and bulk discounts, establishing policies to prevent discrimination, injustice, and abuse, provide legal advocacy and defence in the murky waters of BBS liability, promote the expansion of network links to new parts of the world, sponsor public education efforts to promote intelligent use of e-mail and tele-conferencing, sponsor promising research in new areas, coordinate research internationally, liase with commerical and educational institu- tions where mutual benefit might accrue, study ways in which network services might be "sold" to subsidize cheap private correspondence, work toward international telecommunication standards and freedom of communication in other parts of the world . . . etc. etc. etc. And all in the name of the public, the public good, and the public's access to information, rather than solely in the name of profit, control, and restric- tion. There are some who would say that IFNA, with its elected Board, and wide-ranging, though largely undefined responsibility for the net could be that International Network Co-Op. I guess I'm one. We're riding a fast-rolling snowball here in FidoNet today. It's been five years since Tom Jennings' first preposterous experiments, and nine years since Usenent's first two sites made that first phone call. The snowflake has become a large snowball accelerating down the hill. What may be less apparent is that this snowball is on its way to becoming an avalanche. As we debate these matters I would really like people to devote 1% of their thought to where we might be in ten, twenty or thirty years. Forgive me for taking so long, if you have grown bored, and forgive me for leaving so much out, if you are still interested. In future weeks I hope to take time to probe some of the issues touched on here in greater detail (depending on the response to this piece). I'd be really happy to hear thoughts and opinions from readers. You can send me mail at any of the following addresses: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: !watmath!fido!221!162!Doug_Thompson Unit B-3-11 !watmath!orchid!imprint Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: dt@221.162.fido.waterloo.edu (519) 746-5022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ watmath can be reached through utzoo and most backbone sites. My BBS number is 519-747-1332. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 13 18 Jan 1988 Larry A. DiGioia Sysop NEVERBOARD 129/17, Alternet 522/2 ALTERNET: It might have worked... When I first saw the announcements for ALTERNET, I was overjoyed. This was what I had been waiting for. A network devoted to the "hobbyist spirit." Devoid of all of the silly politics and petty bickering that has become a part of our present network... I particularly admire the PEOPLE who took the initiative and declared their independence. Because after all, what is a network except a group of PEOPLE? I looked forward to seeing all my friends, both locally and nationally, in the new network. In fact, I did see some of them in the alternet nodelists that started trickling out. My old NC, a person who has helped me a lot these past years and whose opinion I have always respected, was also among the first to "jump on the bandwagon." I never in a million years expected that a group of sysops, most of whom spend THOUSANDS of dollars on hardware and phone bills, would go COMPLETELY BONKERS over a proposed $20 a year membership fee. OK, fine. They didn't have to join. That was the choice: ALTERNET is an ALTERNATIVE. They were free to stick with the existing network, and not worry themselves to death about what some of us others CHOSE to join. But no-o-o-o-o.... Then the great, unseen network people started getting together on the subject. They too, objected to the fee. These are the people who run multi-line systems with multiple 9600 modems... I guess they had pictures of ALTERNET coordinators driving off into the sunset in Cadillacs bought with the poor, unsuspecting sysop's hard-earned $20. So, what do they do? Why of course, refuse echomail feeds to anyone on the ALTERNET nodelist! What this really comes down to, of course, is the same old thing: personality conflicts. It isn't really the $20 that most people object to; it's the PEOPLE in ALTERNET. Many have had the honesty to come out and say as much. So, we are being persecuted. The "powers that be" (and don't think for a minute that I mean the IFNA) have decided that they will do their best to prevent their old partners-in-argument from doing something new, simple and exciting. Unfortunately, they have the power to succeed, by the time-honored methods of misinformation, character assasination and innuendo. They have succeeded in shaping "popular opinion" to their own opinions. None of this would matter to me if the callers to my board had not gotten used to the excellent conversation and exchanges of help and information that is provided by the wonderful links FidoNews 5-03 Page 14 18 Jan 1988 of echomail. But you see, even if ALTERNET were composed of "the cream of the BBS community," (which some might say it is,) it would still not provide my callers with the variety of help and discussion that the "old boy" network does now. And I no longer have the choice to keep "the best of both worlds." So, sadly, I must say goodbye to the pioneering people such as Thom, Ryugen, and all the others who bring a breath of fresh air to this world of ours. I wish them all the best of luck, in the pursuit of something even better than we have now. ||Larry|| ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 15 18 Jan 1988 Released 01-05-88 WHAT IS OZONE.EXE ================= OZONE is a crude but useful utility designed to make the incorporation of the Anetlist into the Nodelist. Using Xlatlist 2.85 you can add nodes from the Anetlist into the nodelist using the OZONE statement in the control file you use with Xlatlist. However, as the Anetlist gets larger, this will mean adding new entries by hand. So OZONE.EXE was born to help in making this task easier. OZONE.EXE will read the Anetlist and produce a straight text file you can add to the Xlatlist.ctl file. It saves you from typing in new OZONE statements each week. HOW DO I RUN OZONE.EXE ====================== Simply type OZONE ANETLIST.XXX with XXX being the number of the Anetlist you wish to process. The resulting text file will be produced and called OZONE.LST in the same directory. Please be sure OZONE.EXE and ANETLIST.XXX are in the SAME directory. OZONE does not in any way alter either the Anetlist or the Nodelist. WHERE CAN I GET OZONE.EXE ========================= You can either file request it from 107/246 or download it from that same board. The request name is OZONE and will be honored at all times except NMH and the hour before and after NMH. DO I HAVE TO PAY TO USE OZONE.EXE ================================= No payment is required. This utility will only be used for a short period of time so no payment is required or expected. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 16 18 Jan 1988 Here are the latest patches for Quick Basic 4.0. The first one is to eliminate the DTR problem encountered when running a Quick Basic program. DEBUG BCOM40.LIB -D 100 L 5 xxxx:0100 Take the first <3> numbers of 'xxxx' and add 85. Example: if you had something like 114F:0100 then you would add 85 to 114 and get 199. The new number you come up with will be 'yyy'. -S yyy0:0 FFFF 83 C2 04 32 C0 DEBUG will now give TWO locations where these bytes are located. Lets call the first address xxxx:yyyy -U xxxx:yyyy L 6 You should see three lines. The 'xxxx:yyyy' should be represented by an 'XOR AL AL' -A xxxx:yyyy xxxx:yyyy MOV AL, 1 (hit enter here) Now repeat the process with the other number. (starting at the U command) After you have done that, be sure to save the file: -W Writing xxxx bytes -Q And there you have it! Here is the recipe to remove the HALT which QuickBASIC executes when an unrecoverable error is encountered. This patch is only good for version 4.0 of QB. However this may serve as a guide for future versions of QB. Note: Make sure you have backups of any files your are going modify with DEBUG.....Edsel Murphy is not dead........ A> debug BCOM40.LIB -S xxxx:1 FFFF 75 FD E2 F8 Where xxxx equals the DS register xxxx:A046 FidoNews 5-03 Page 17 18 Jan 1988 -U A042 A052 xxxx:A042 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8 xxxx:A045 48 DEC AX xxxx:A046 75FD JNZ A045 xxxx:A048 E2F8 LOOP A042 xxxx:A04A B8070C MOV AX,0C07 xxxx:A04D CD21 INT 21 <----- this is the wait for KYBD input xxxx:A04F E80000 CALL A052 xxxx:A052 CB RETF -E xxxx:A04d 90 90 This places NOP's where it used to wait for KYBD input. -U A042 A052 xxxx:A042 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8 xxxx:A045 48 DEC AX xxxx:A046 75FD JNZ A045 xxxx:A048 E2F8 LOOP A042 xxxx:A04A B8070C MOV AX,0C07 xxxx:A04D 90 NOP xxxx:A04E 90 NOP xxxx:A04F E80000 CALL A052 xxxx:A052 CB RETF -W -Q Once you have done this now comes the fun part of re- LINKing all of your programs. However if use the compile option in QB that uses BRUN40.EXE (no /O option) then this next patch is for you. This patch takes effect immediately and requires no re-compilation of your programs. A> rename BRUN40.EXE BRUN40.ORG A> debug BRUN40.ORG -S xxxx:1 FFFF 75 FD E2 F8 Where xxxx equals the DS register xxxx:5288 -U 5271 5294 xxxx:5271 F6067C0A03 TEST BYTE PTR [0A7C],03 xxxx:5276 751C JNZ 5294 xxxx:5278 E81BE1 CALL 3396 xxxx:527B B80780 MOV AX,8007 xxxx:527E E8EFE0 CALL 3370 <----- this outputs "PRESS ANY .." xxxx:5281 B9C800 MOV CX,00C8 xxxx:5284 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8 xxxx:5287 48 DEC AX xxxx:5288 75FD JNZ 5287 xxxx:528A E2F8 LOOP 5284 FidoNews 5-03 Page 18 18 Jan 1988 xxxx:528C B8070C MOV AX,0C07 xxxx:528F CD21 INT 21 <----- this is the wait for KYBD input xxxx:5291 E802E1 CALL 3396 xxxx:5294 CB RETF -E xxxx:527E 90 90 90 This NOP's the "PRESS ANY ..." output message. -E xxxx:528F 90 90 This places NOP's where it used to wait for KYBD input. -U 5271 5294 xxxx:5271 F6067C0A03 TEST BYTE PTR [0A7C],03 xxxx:5276 751C JNZ 5294 xxxx:5278 E81BE1 CALL 3396 xxxx:527B B80780 MOV AX,8007 xxxx:527E 90 NOP xxxx:527F 90 NOP xxxx:5280 90 NOP xxxx:5281 B9C800 MOV CX,00C8 xxxx:5284 B8E803 MOV AX,03E8 xxxx:5287 48 DEC AX xxxx:5288 75FD JNZ 5287 xxxx:528A E2F8 LOOP 5284 xxxx:528C B8070C MOV AX,0C07 xxxx:528F 90 NOP xxxx:5290 90 NOP xxxx:5291 E802E1 CALL 3396 xxxx:5294 CB RETF -W -Q A> rename BRUN40.ORG BRUN40.EXE Thanks To Ray Horton For The Second Set Of Patches. For those of you that have not seen Quick BBS yet, I urge you to call a system running it and take a good look at what it is. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 19 18 Jan 1988 ================================================================= WANTED ================================================================= TRW Real Estate Information Systems, in Anaheim, CA is seeking a creative Senior Programmer/Analyst to aid in the analysis, design and implementation of a new generation of micro/mainframe systems running in an IBM PC-AT compatible multitasking environment. We are looking for motivated, independent thinker with a minimum of two years MS-DOS micro programming in C or Macro Assembler and two years mini/mainframe programming. Experience in structured development techniques and systems analysis/design required. Familiarity with micro-mainframe communications, micro hardware, and networks is desirable. Direct customer interface is common, so good written and oral communication skills are needed. Please forward your resume with work history and references to: TRW Real Estate Information Systems, Professional Employment, Dept. DL-101, 2000 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805. An equal opportunity employer. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 20 18 Jan 1988 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 25 Aug 1988 Start of the Fifth International FidoNet Conference, to be held at the Drawbridge Inn in Cincinnatti, OH. Contact Tim Sullivan at 108/62 for more information. This is FidoNet's big annual get-together, and is your chance to meet all the people you've been talking with all this time. We're hoping to see you there! 24 Aug 1989 Voyager 2 passes Neptune. If you have something which you would like to see on this calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Latest Software Versions BBS Systems Node List Other & Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version Dutchie 2.80* EditNL 3.3 ARC 5.21 Fido 12e* MakeNL 1.10 ARCmail 1.1 Opus 1.03a Prune 1.40 ConfMail 3.31* SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.85* EchoMail 1.31 TBBS 2.0M MGM 1.1 BinkleyTerm 1.30* * Recently changed Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 21 18 Jan 1988 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) _`@/_ \ _ | | \ \\ | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) Membership for the International FidoNet Association Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to increase worldwide communications. Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________ Address _________________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________________ State ________________________________ Zip _____________________ Country _________________________________________________________ Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________ BBS Name ________________________________________________________ BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________ Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________ Board Restrictions ______________________________________________ Your Special Interests __________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in US Funds to: International FidoNet Association c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA 700 Bishop Street, #1014 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-4112 USA Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to insure the future of FidoNet. Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the membership in January 1987. The first elected Board of Directors was filled in August 1987. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your input to this Conference. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-03 Page 22 18 Jan 1988 INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION ORDER FORM Publications The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido 1:1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing them directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee Chairmen provide us with the latest versions of each publication, but we can make no written guarantees. Hardcopy prices as of October 1, 1986 IFNA Fido BBS listing $15.00 _____ IFNA Administrative Policy DOCs $10.00 _____ IFNA FidoNet Standards Committee DOCs $10.00 _____ SUBTOTAL _____ IFNA Member ONLY Special Offers System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____ SEAdog price as of March 1, 1987 ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $100.00 _____ Fido/FidoNet price as of November 1, 1987 ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member International orders include $10.00 for surface shipping or $20.00 for air shipping _____ SUBTOTAL _____ HI. Residents add 4.0 % Sales tax _____ TOTAL _____ SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN US FUNDS: International FidoNet Association c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA 700 Bishop Street, #1014 Honolulu, HI. 96813-4112 USA Name________________________________ Zone:Net/Node____:____/____ Company_____________________________ Address_____________________________ City____________________ State____________ Zip_____ Voice Phone_________________________ Signature___________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------