Subj : MMTerm? To : Ed Williams From : Jim Hanoian Date : Fri Apr 13 2001 09:20 pm -=> Ed Williams wrote to Jim Hanoian <=- EW> Also the project would set a standard interface for plug in EW> app's. This is helpful in many way's. The concept I'm trying EW> to preach is that we as Fidonet need to band together to EW> provide free tools to contact all the BBS's in Fidonet and use EW> them properly. An integrated BBS dialer with QWK support, file EW> viewing, and extracting, text editing, etc would be a boon to Honestly, with the reduced participation in BBSing, and the small proportion of those who actually do offline mail, and the smaller proportion of those who use QWK, I can tell you that you are striving for a goal that is (1) meaningless to most people and (2) incidently has already been done (and failed). Why do you insist on QWK with its severe limitations? No involved Fido person would consider using QWK, if they chose to do offline mail reading in this manner at all. It is much too limited, and could actually be considered as "broken" with respect to many Fido standards. But I suppose that Fido standards don't mean anything to you if you're trying to build/promote software for Fido????? EW> Now this pretty much solves all my confusion over your point. EW> Granted you may have had some isolated incidence of an asshole EW> in your net that decided he was god, this was fostered most EW> often by the fact that Cost often superceeded common sense as EW> far as net structure. It came to fidonet as a great cost when EW> those with the biggest equipment in the net provided cost EW> recovery plans, and then demanded that anyone who wanted to EW> replace them match their equipment. The standard of the one EW> with the most rules was a devastating concept to Fidonet, EW> especially when those big boy's moved onto the internet and EW> left Fidonet completely. You are trying to put words in my mouth. No matter how you slice it, BBS to BBS transfers ****OR**** individual to BBS transfers, if you have to use long distance, you are racking up charges that someone has to pay. I never said that it was someone in the net who was demanding cost sharing for mail distribution, but yes... that was and is a fact of life for many BBS operators. Guess what they have done? They have found a telnet feed where they can connect to swap mail without having to worry about copper-line telephone costs. And how do **I** participate in BBSing? I connect to a BBS in Texas and another one in England. Talk to me about picking up those telephone charges, please, and maybe I'll agree to stop telnetting and revert to dial-up. Even if you picked up the tab on those phone calls, I probably still wouldn't do dial-up because I would rather do mail runs while I surf the web, get my internet email, and other stuff ALL AT THE SAME TIME which would be impossible if I were to use dial-up BBSs. EW> Lastly, I realize you are sold on the Internet as the EW> Communications Network of the Future. While this may EW> eventually prove true, it is not currently the case, and it is Hold on. You say that it will become true (which is the definition of "future") but you say I'm wrong calling it the future? Consistency check, please! EW> highly doubtful that BBS's will be able to keep up the pace of EW> development to keep up with the coming changes of the internet, EW> especially as devices replace the computer entirely for EW> Internet access and ISP's who provide dial up computer based EW> services wane to a minimum. Everyone knows the day's of Telnet EW> access are now a dying species because the new devices won't EW> know telnet from a piece of toast. And cable or DSL Hold on. You say that there will be "new devices" that will replace the computer. If this is the case, why are you bothering to develop a dial-up application for a non-existent computer to access non-existent computer BBS? EW> connections won't make much of a difference because they will EW> only duplicate the things the devices do, only badly. Telnet EW> itself does not have the intense support it needs to be put EW> inside those devices and thus will not be supported over the EW> cable/dsl systems much longer. Cable and DSL will support telnet much longer than having no modem in the machine will support a dial-up connection it can't make. Look at it this way... if you have more than one computer in the house, how are you going to connect them AND connect them to the internet? You're gonna use networking cards to connect them, and then route out to an ISP using IP. You are certainly NOT going to network the computers in your house using modems, nor are you going to provide a separate phone line for each computer. Further, if a person has cable modem access available, why would they even consider installing a separate phone line just to call a dial-up BBS? Or should they rob time from a primary phone line, possibly missing phone calls? I'm sure the family would love that! It is clear that modems will be tossed to the trash bin long before network cards, cable modems, and DSL are. The three reason for this are speed, speed, and speed. Why are you trying to garner support for a 53k maximum (according to the FCC, 56k modems are restricted to 53k, and if truth be told most people don't get even close to 53k) when a cable modem can deliver up to 8 megabit transfers? That's only, what, 400 times faster? EW> So I continue to insist that Fidonet needs to band together to EW> support the standards that it CAN rely upon and build on, EW> whatever that may be. You may choose to stick your head in the EW> sand until things are all doomed, and bitch that people should EW> have supported telnet better, and rallied the computer industry EW> to put telnet access into their HDTV converters, much like you EW> now do about how Fidonet didn't change their nodelists to allow EW> undialable nodes. But I choose to encourage everyone in 1. I have never made any statement about nodelists or nodes. 2. I do not stick my head in the sand. EW> Fidonet to take time to insure that our standards are in OUR EW> hands so that we can survive, and thrive. EW> I believe we can. QWK via dial-up is ****NOT***** a standard that Fido needs to support. I believe that you are so stuck in the past (or in the ways you are presently accustomed to doing things) that you will not consider other, better alternatives and you are trying to evangelize your antiquated ideas on everybody else. .... Jim Hanoian, Augusta, Maine, USA .... Old age is when you're stiff all over except where it counts. --- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.39 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) .