Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!cbosgd!hal!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Fidonet (was Re: the USENET problems)
Message-ID: <2922@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jul-87 23:52:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncoast.2922
Posted: Thu Jul 16 23:52:35 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 19:47:00 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <15982@gatech.gatech.edu> <1496@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> <193@mtuxo.UUCP> <45@oresoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: na
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh
Lines: 47
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1255 news.admin:710
As quoted from <45@oresoft.UUCP> by randy@oresoft.UUCP:
+---------------
| Unfortunately, Fidonet's 'governing body', IFNA, met with the same kind of
| warm, friendly, cooperative attitude that such suggestions meet on usenet.
| Entire echo conferences (=newsgroups) died from the flaming and stupidity.
| Only about 20% of the >1500 public Fidonet nodes have even joined IFNA.
|
| Note that the FidoNews one reads on usenet is the weekly newsletter put
| together by the constructive folk. The trashers prefer to occupy net.bandwidth
| with rumors, innuendo, ad hominem attack, and the normal flaming. As Fidonet
| users tend to be more amateur than those on usenet (no implication meant in
| either direction), the Fidonet trashers usually don't even make interesting
| reading.
+---------------
At the last few meetings of CASA (the Cleveland/Akron Sysops' Association),
I had a discussion with some Fido sysops. The similarities between Fidonet
and Usenet were striking.
Indeed, Fidonet is going through the same problems as the Usenet. In fact,
worse problems, because they don't have any "backbone" sites, in the Usenet
sense: no gatech, no seismo (of course, that's about to happen to us as well),
no UUNET, nothing of the sort. Excessively low SNR could destroy the Fidonet
much more quickly than it would the Usenet: the current Usenet situation is
untenable on the Fidonet.
I've also become more involved with local Fido systems. And seen this myself.
When it comes down to it, anarchy doesn't work when the population is too
high. Fidonet is rapidly approaching the line, Usenet passed it long ago
but continues on sheer blind inertia. (The loss of seismo may well blow
Usenet sky-high. Add the possibility that Gene Spafford may leave the net,
and it gets worse. If UUNET fails (still possible) on top of everything
else, the loss of coordinated effort may damage the Usenet beyond all hope of
recovery.)
It's time to open our eyes and look at the world. Part of this may involve
the "backbone cabal" meeting with the IFNA "board of directors" (if and when)
and comparing notes; maybe together we can come up with a solution for both
networks. As it is, it is certain that the current situation is teetering
on the brink.
--
[Copyright 1987 Brandon S. Allbery, all rights reserved] \ ncoast 216 781 6201
[Redistributable only if redistribution is subsequently permitted.] \ 2400 bd.
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc
{{ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,{well,ihnp4}!hoptoad,cbosgd}!ncoast!allbery
<>