Lee Lofaso wrote to All <=-
"I may add that The UK, or what will be left of it in the near future
has been drifting west for a couple of decades already. So maybe net
250 should be moved to Z1 anyway..."
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough, CN>KW> we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russian ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
That's 1% of the world's population ...
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
But not all of them are in Fidonet.
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
No, but removing the dead echoes and consolidating others would increase the ratio of messages to echoes. But, that's a thought for another day.
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
As long as he/she followed the rules as set forth by the body of sysops.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Kurt will not like that.
But the thing is, bumping everything into one zone will break so much that it probably would kill the network.
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make CN>Fidonetechomail more active, rather the contrary.
Correct.
Those suggestions over the years from people to bump all the zones together
happen just because they haven't given it a second thought, and in some cases probably not even a first thought either.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
"I may add that The UK, or what will be left of it in the near future
has been drifting west for a couple of decades already. So maybe net
250 should be moved to Z1 anyway..."
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone.
We're small enough, we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a
zone structure.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
for greener pastures, wherever that might have been.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
How do you know that an echo is dead?. Maybe, your corner is not
connected to another corner, where the echo is alive and well.
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
As long as he/she followed the rules as set forth by the body of sysops.
Continuing the same structure at present is Fidonet suicide.
Ward Dossche wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
As long as he/she followed the rules as set forth by the body of sysops.
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are' Russian ... ? :-)
for greener pastures, wherever that might have been.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
i don't know whats the problem here. fidonet IS working and it's structure should be well as it survived 40 years.. >:)
Fidonet survived due to the many dedicated sysops who remained to
maintain it after the masses left for the internet. Having multiple
zones was more of a hindrance rather than an asset during those
times, and should have been abandoned long ago. So why not return
to basics and rebuild from there?
I don't see the hindrance that you mentioned.
What would be the biggest benefit?
Continuing the same structure at present is Fidonet suicide.
Still no nodenumber I see?
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are'
Russian ... ? :-)
Fidonet survived due to the many dedicated sysops who remained to
maintain it after the masses left for the internet. Having multiple
zones was more of a hindrance rather than an asset during those
times, and should have been abandoned long ago. So why not return
to basics and rebuild from there?
So?
Fidonet survived due to the many dedicated sysops who remained to
maintain it after the masses left for the internet. Having multiple
zones was more of a hindrance rather than an asset during those
times, and should have been abandoned long ago. So why not return
to basics and rebuild from there?
I don't see the hindrance that you mentioned.
What would be the biggest benefit?
In the beginning, nothing hindered Fidonet. Not even zones.
And then, the alleged "founder" of Fidonet created clones of
the original, calling them "zones". Once he completed his
work he left Fidonet, never to return.
Hello Ward Dossche!
** On Monday 14.06.21 - 13:16, Ward Dossche wrote to Kurt Weiske:
But, can that be verified? It seems that the vast number of
telnettable (verifiable) bbses are in North America as per the Geographical Distribution pie chart here:
 https://www.ipingthereforeiam.com/bbs/
Hello Flavio,
In the beginning, nothing hindered Fidonet. Not even zones.
And then, the alleged "founder" of Fidonet created clones of
the original, calling them "zones". Once he completed his
work he left Fidonet, never to return.
Sysops dropped like flies, going from a high of 34,000+ to
less than 1,000. Lost two whole zones, with another two zones
on the blink, leaving only two zones with a sizeable number
of sysops remaining.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small
enough, we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a
zone structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Of course... :)
Even said in jest, that sentiment is exactly why it wouldn't work.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make
Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
No, but removing the dead echoes and consolidating others would
increase the ratio of messages to echoes. But, that's a thought for another day.
structurei don't know whats the problem here. fidonet IS working and it's
should be well as it survived 40 years.. >:)
Fidonet survived due to the many dedicated sysops who remained to
maintain it after the masses left for the internet. Having multiple
zones was more of a hindrance rather than an asset during those
times, and should have been abandoned long ago. So why not return
to basics and rebuild from there?
Do you know this personally or just from hear-say?
What problems have YOU had with the multiple zones in Fidonet?
Continuing the same structure at present is Fidonet suicide.
Still no nodenumber I see?
So?
All of your rhetoric, it's based on hear-say. You have no first hand experience to call on when making recommendations.
In the beginning, nothing hindered Fidonet. Not even zones.
And then, the alleged "founder" of Fidonet created clones of
the original, calling them "zones". Once he completed his
work he left Fidonet, never to return.
Your remarks do not match the history of Fidonet.
You are advised to read the published copy of Fidonews from the period you
are referring to.
Moreover, I doubt you have the knowledge to judge the technical challenges
that Fidonet had to meet at that time.
Readup, show some technical competence by operating your own fidoneode, or just shut up.
If I may make a suggestion, returning Louisiana to France (which
sold us off not once, but twice) would be a nice gesture to show your appreciation ...
Hello Ward,
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Kurt will not like that.
Fidonet, properly structured, will be a welcome change. Not only for
Kurt, but also for most sysops in Fidonet. Not so much by a infinitely
small number of sysops, who will not be named. But like somebody said
a long time ago, you can't please everybody.
You see, the way it worked in the beginning was really simple.
First there was node number 1. Then there was node number 2 ...
That's right! My opinion is totally unbiased! The very best kind!
I have a feeling that most sysops don't really care as long as echomail and
netmail flows. The main problem faced by most sysops is a lack of users.
Fidonet is pretty much set it and forget it if you do it properly. Personally, I don't care if there's 1 zone or 6 zones. I do care that my netmail will
reach Inner Mongolia :)
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Kurt will not like that.
Fidonet, properly structured, will be a welcome change. Not only for
Kurt, but also for most sysops in Fidonet. Not so much by a infinitely
small number of sysops, who will not be named. But like somebody said
a long time ago, you can't please everybody.
I have a feeling that most sysops don't really care as long as echomail and
netmail flows. The main problem faced by most sysops is a lack of users.
Fidonet is pretty much set it and forget it if you do it properly.
Personally, I don't care if there's 1 zone or 6 zones. I do care that my netmail will reach Inner Mongolia :)
Continuing the same structure at present is Fidonet suicide.
Still no nodenumber I see?
So?
All of your rhetoric, it's based on hear-say. You have no first hand
experience to call on when making recommendations.
That's right! My opinion is totally unbiased! The very best kind!
As unbiased as that may be, without a nodenumber you have no "voting rights"
in the operation of Fidonet.
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Of course... :)
Even said in jest, that sentiment is exactly why it wouldn't work.
I was joking, of course.
What sentiment you mean?
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently- a good idea.
As for the echos -- maybe, as long as /consolidating/ does not mean renaming active echos... };-)
If I now had a BBS (or another kind of user-interface) I would probably "hide" to users the dead echos, giving better visibility to those that
are more or less active.
David Drummond wrote to Nigel Reed <=-
Since you first became node listed how many netmails have you had the
urge to send to Inner Mongolia?
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian, Canadian, Russian or whatever...)
You see, the way it worked in the beginning was really simple.
First there was node number 1. Then there was node number 2 ...
Then, why are networks/regions neccessary?
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are' Russian
... ? :-)
I don't care what nationality the ZC is, as long as there's some semblance of rules followed. At the end of the day, this is just a hobby.
Even said in jest, that sentiment is exactly why it wouldn't
work.
I was joking, of course.
What sentiment you mean?
The last time I brought this up, the debate didn't get past whether to
use Zone 1 or Zone 2 as the number of Fidonet's zone in a unified structure.
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently- a
good idea.
On the contrary, but I'm being naive. Removing the zone structure
wouldn't remove long-standing geographic feuds, which gets tiresome.
Those feuds would continue unabated.
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from
that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian,
Canadian, Russian or whatever...)
What makes you think, that merging Zones is viable, in a network,
where merging nets seems almost impossible, although it is suggested
in policy.
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from that
change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian, Canadian, Russian
or whatever...)
What makes you think, that merging Zones is viable, in a network, where merging nets seems almost impossible, although it is suggested in policy.
You see, the way it worked in the beginning was really simple.
First there was node number 1. Then there was node number 2 ...
Then, why are networks/regions neccessary?
for the dumbfucks to rule over their little digital kingdom. fidonet was always about status and power and was killed by it ...
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are' Russian
... ? :-)
I don't care what nationality the ZC is, as long as there's somesemblance
of rules followed. At the end of the day, this is just a hobby.
what rules?
Then, why are networks/regions neccessary?
for the dumbfucks to rule over their little digital kingdom. fidonet was
always about status and power and was killed by it ...
I'm not dead yet.
On 16/06/2021 08:20, 1124/5016 wrote:
I have a feeling that most sysops don't really care as long as echomail and
netmail flows. The main problem faced by most sysops is a lack of users.
Fidonet is pretty much set it and forget it if you do it properly. Personally, I don't care if there's 1 zone or 6 zones. I do care that my netmail will
reach Inner Mongolia :)
Since you first became node listed how many netmails have you had the urge to send to Inner Mongolia?
@TZUTC: -0700
@MSGID: 70543.fidonews@1:218/700 2536e5a8
@REPLY: 2:341/234.1 60cda374
@PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Win32 master/b81540481 May 18 2021 MSC 1928
@TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Win32 master/b81540481 May 18 2021 MSC 1928
@BBSID: REALITY
@CHRS: ASCII 1
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Can you remember when and in what echo was this discussed? I'd
like to read that if I can find it somewhere.
It might have been this one.
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently-
a good idea.
No, I think it's a good idea, but I think it's an uphill battle to implement.
I'd like to see a Fidonet with active nodes, a simpler structure reflective of the smaller size and lack of need for dialup to move
packets and an echolist where dead echoes are dropped or consolidated
into other echoes to create fewer echoes with more message traffic.
On the contrary, but I'm being naive. Removing the zone structure
wouldn't remove long-standing geographic feuds, which gets
tiresome. Those feuds would continue unabated.
I thought that was a thing of the past. AFAIK we don't have those
in zone 2 (though I don't know for sure).
There's still a lot of sniping between zones, maybe not so much within zones.
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from
that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian,
Canadian, Russian or whatever...)
Carlos
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
... Where are we? When are we? Is this now?
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech
(1:218/700)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 30/0 80/1 102/401 103/17 705 154/10 214/22 218/0 1 401
410
SEEN-BY: 218/501 700 720 802 810 830 840 850 860 221/1 6 229/426
240/12 1120
SEEN-BY: 240/1512 1634 1895 8001 8002 8005 261/38 280/464 5003 5555 282/464
SEEN-BY: 292/854 301/0 1 101 113 123 812 303/0 313/41 335/364 341/66
371/0 52
SEEN-BY: 380/5 382/147 712/848 920/1 2432/390 5020/1042 5058/104
@PATH: 218/700 301/1 240/1120 371/0
for the dumbfucks to rule over their little digital kingdom. fidonet was always about status and power and was killed by it ...
Then, why are networks/regions neccessary?
for the dumbfucks to rule over their little digital kingdom. fidonet was always about status and power and was killed by it ...
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Can you remember when and in what echo was this discussed? I'd like to read that if I can find it somewhere.
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently- a
good idea.
On the contrary, but I'm being naive. Removing the zone structure
wouldn't remove long-standing geographic feuds, which gets tiresome.
Those feuds would continue unabated.
I thought that was a thing of the past. AFAIK we don't have those in
zone 2 (though I don't know for sure).
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian, Canadian,
Russian or whatever...)
Carlos
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:36:35 |
| Calls: | 6,650 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,629 |