Scott,

Season's greetings to you.

There are a disturbing number of people worrying about
the sky falling down as well.

A number is singular, Scott, so if a number of idiots exists, then it is hardly unexpected, and so be it. From the way you have marshalled your arguments you may even be among them.

If you are not prepared to be civil, then I for one am not prepared to take
you seriously. You have written patronising twaddle as if you were talking down
to a six-year-old. That is not explaining your position in layman's terms and is certainly not the way to gain support for new ideas.

Consider your audience carefully and remember that Jan's IQ probably exceeds your own.

Make a case for changing the content of the nodelist, not the form, and you
may gain the support you need. Stubbornly championing one particular form (XML)
makes it look as if you are simply limited to working in that form, and obscures any good intentions for the net that you may have.

Jan and I are concerned more about disenfranchising the present population than you appear to be. Your lofty claim that nobody is out to do that just doesn't hold up. Changing the distribution nodelist is all it would take.

There are also unresolved ethical questions about whose dime is used if you
abandon PSTN connection as the mainstay of FidoNet (TM). Direct connection between any two nodes during ZMH is the essence of FidoNet.

Catastrophic failure of internet components is not uncommon and Chicken Licken is not the only one who knows this. If enough components fail the network can no longer route around the damage. Chicken Licken also knows this; so do less timorous animals. Perhaps even you should admit it. You would not like people to think you had less common sense than a chicken. :-)

Retaining the direct connection system has advantages as long as the PSTN itself holds up. Total reliance on internet simply throws those advantages away.

Make a better case, Scott, or put someone on who can. :-)

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)

[ 29 Dec 02 00:10, Bill Birrell wrote to Scott Little ]

If you are not prepared to be civil, then I for one am not
prepared to take you seriously

I'm heartbroken...

You have written patronising twaddle as if you were talking down to a six-year-old.

I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over. Actually, I'm tired of arguing about it, period. Everyone's taken their sides, there's little point in it anymore.

If you want nicer responses, state your specific arguements. Vague claims of impending doom are both insufficient and irritating.

That is not explaining your position in layman's terms and is

This is NET_DEV, not AOL_NEWBIES.

Consider your audience carefully and remember that Jan's IQ
probably exceeds your own.

A high IQ means you get to win at Trivial Persuit, it doesn't necessarily make you a good programmer/software designer.

Make a case for changing the content of the nodelist, not the

I will not be part of any effort to alter the St Louis format for things for which it was not designed. Find some other sucker.

form, and you may gain the support you need. Stubbornly championing
one particular form (XML) makes it look as if you are simply limited
to working in that form, and obscures any good intentions for the net
that you may have.

I'm not "stubbornly championing one particular form" - I simply refuse to acknowledge stupid arguements from people who are afraid of XML because they don't know or understand it, or because the bar is too high for them. Mothering luddites who still need their security blanket/teddy bear is not my problem.

Jan and I are concerned more about disenfranchising the present population than you appear to be.

If you want me to counter your arguements politely, explain just how exactly this is going to happen. Otherwise, get over it, because it's not going to happen.

Changing the distribution nodelist is all it would take.

Repeatedly: backwards compatibility will be built in at all levels. All new software will be able to both import and export SLF format. SLF nodelists will
be generated until the end of time, no difference will be seen by those who use
that format.

There are also unresolved ethical questions about whose dime is used
if you abandon PSTN connection as the mainstay of FidoNet (TM).

Who's advocating that?

Catastrophic failure of internet components is not uncommon and

What components frequently fail?

If enough components fail the network can no longer route around the damage.

What damage?

Retaining the direct connection system has advantages as long as
the PSTN itself holds up. Total reliance on internet simply throws
those advantages away.

Again, who's arguing total reliance on the Internet? WTF does that have to do with a new nodelist format?


-- Scott Little [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod@sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+
* Origin: Cyberia: All your msgbase are belong to us! (3:712/848)

*** Quoting Scott Little from a message to Bill Birrell ***

If enough components fail the network can no longer route around the damage.

What damage?

I think he makes reference to something a bit off the topic here. When George Peace shut down, it caused quite a bit of mail mayhem for a time. It may not have been as noted where you are, but I was in R13 and fully 1/2 the region pulled from his site. We got everyone relinked, but it was not easy.

Now I'll go back to lurking, looking for info on XML at which I am a neophyte ;-)
xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS, Sasebo Japan 0956-25-2561 (6:757/1)

Consider your audience carefully and remember that Jan's IQ
probably exceeds your own.

Then again his IQ might be half of what Scott's is. Drop the personal
attacks because they do nothing /GOOD/.

Jan and I are concerned more about disenfranchising the present population than you appear to be. Your lofty claim that nobody is out
to do that just doesn't hold up. Changing the distribution nodelist is
all it would take.

Your concern is based on your ignorance and nothing more.

There are also unresolved ethical questions about whose dime is
used if you abandon PSTN connection

Again your ignorance is showing. Not a single person that has suggested or
is working on an XML nodelist has suggested anything close to this.

Catastrophic failure of internet components is not uncommon and Chicken Licken is not the only one who knows this.

What does this (internet components failing) have to do with an XML
nodelist?

Retaining the direct connection system has advantages as long as
the PSTN itself holds up. Total reliance on internet simply throws
those advantages away.

Again your ignorance is showing. PTSN happens to part of the XML nodelist we are working on.

Make a better case, Scott, or put someone on who can. :-)

Bill, /YOU/ are the one that is in need of making a better case. You are
either arguing from an ignorant position /OR/ you are deliberately spreading FUD.

With best regards, Dale Ross. E-mail: Dale.Ross@p1.f1.n379.z1.fidonet.org

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub
* Origin: FidoHub Point 1 (1:379/1.1)

[ 30 Dec 02 08:43, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Scott Little ]

and fully 1/2 the region pulled from his site. We got everyone
relinked, but it was not easy.

Just a case of everyone putting their eggs in one basket - that has little to do with the Internet itself. If anything, it's a reason for sticking to the Fidonet structure (Z:R:N:F:P) for echomail, if/where at all possible.

Now I'll go back to lurking, looking for info on XML at which I am a neophyte ;-)

Dale was allegedly organising some commentary from an XML expert in XML.DMBS...
still waiting :)

Designing the XML structure is something we have to get right the first time, because we may have to live with it for a while..


-- Scott Little [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod@sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+
* Origin: Cyberia: All your msgbase are belong to us! (3:712/848)

I think he makes reference to something a bit off the
topic here. When George Peace shut down, it caused
quite a bit of mail mayhem for a time. It may not
have been as noted where you are, but I was in R13 and
fully 1/2 the region pulled from his site. We got
everyone relinked, but it was not easy.

Now I'll go back to lurking, looking for info on XML
at which I am a neophyte ;-)

Carol my love, I don't need anybody else to speak for me. I'm quite good at
it all by myself. The topic here is net development. That is what I was discussing.

Besides, if Scott had written in plain words instead of jargon, this whole kerfuffle would have been avoided.

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)

I'm heartbroken...

So you should be. If you would bother to write plainly and politely you would find the people you characterise as luddites on your side.

I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over.
Actually, I'm tired of arguing about it, period.

Get over it! You are advocating change.

Everyone's taken their sides, there's little point in
it anymore.

Scott, I have very little to say. All you had to say was that the system you advocate would run in parallel with the standard distribution nodelist. You
didn't say it. That appears to be the only mistake you made other than being rude to all and sundry because they did not and could not understand what you didn't say.

The following advice is as old as FidoNet(TM) itself - "Just do it!"

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)

*** Quoting Scott Little from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

Just a case of everyone putting their eggs in one basket - that has li
to do with the Internet itself. If anything, it's a reason for sticki
to the Fidonet structure (Z:R:N:F:P) for echomail, if/where at all pos

Not really. Right now, we have many flows. I see no harm in a default type as
well, if it's properly documented and applied. The problems have been in losing a connection in the chain. That and cost factors come into play.

neophyte ;-)

Dale was allegedly organising some commentary from an XML expert in XM
still waiting :)

Oh not another echo! (Actually, sounds more like a newsgroup there).
xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS, Sasebo Japan 0956-25-2561 (6:757/1)

[ 31 Dec 02 00:17, Bill Birrell wrote to Scott Little ]

Scott, I have very little to say. All you had to say was that the system you advocate would run in parallel with the standard
distribution nodelist.

My first message to you was:

The nodelist cannot be significantly altered or superseded while we
are still using the term FidoNet anyway. To do so would just cut off
everyone who depends on the nodelist as it is.

Extracting the subset of information that is supported by SLF from a
superior format is trivally easy. Nobody has ever suggested
cutting off those that depend on SLF.

If you couldn't understand what I said above, a simply "Huh?" would have sufficed. Instead you started crapping on about the apocalypse..


-- Scott Little [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod@sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+
* Origin: Cyberia: All your msgbase are belong to us! (3:712/848)

Hi Scott.

A high IQ means you get to win at Trivial Persuit,

nah, to win at TP all you need is a good memory,

it doesn't necessarily make you a good programmer/software designer

That's true. there's a lot of learning behind that skill.

Make a case for changing the content of the nodelist, not the

I will not be part of any effort to alter the St Louis format for
things for which it was not designed. Find some other sucker

form, and you may gain the support you need.

read it again.

if you make a good case for changing the content you've
got a good case for changing the form.

I'm not "stubbornly championing one particular form" - I simply

Are you prepared to consider any other forms?

Repeatedly: backwards compatibility will be built in at all
levels. All new software will be able to both import and export
SLF format. SLF nodelists will be generated until the end of
time, no difference will be seen by those who use that format

I'd have hoped for some improvement atleast :)

Bye <=-

---
* Origin: I'm pink, therefore I'm SPAM. (3:640/1042)

Now I'll go back to lurking, looking for info on XML at which I am a
neophyte ;-)

Dale was allegedly organising some commentary from an XML expert in XML.DMBS... still waiting :)

Designing the XML structure is something we have to get right the first time, because we may have to live with it for a while..

Yes and Chris Cranford 1:379/1200 has FINALLY joined in the echo. He lives
and breathes XML all day long. He will probably tear apart my current "proposal" for <node>.

He said that there should be some posts from him in the next day. I will be absent for a couple of days. Later this morning my boys and I are heading to Jacksonville, FL for the Gator Bowl! I know, that doesn't mean anything to
you. But it does to us! :-)

With best regards, Dale Ross. E-mail: Dale.Ross@p1.f1.n379.z1.fidonet.org

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub
* Origin: FidoHub Point 1 (1:379/1.1)

[ 30 Dec 02 16:57, Jasen Betts wrote to Scott Little ]

I'm not "stubbornly championing one particular form" - I simply

Are you prepared to consider any other forms?

HRN is still an option, and I agree there are valid reasons to use it. It's just that I haven't seen them argued - people have come up with all sorts of nonsensical paranoid excuses of why XML is bad instead.

I'd have hoped for some improvement atleast :)

Well, for one, SLF segments that originated from XML (by *Cs using XML processors) will obey the rules coded into the conversion algorithm. Plus, *Cs
may opt to convert incoming SLF to XML, merge in their local segment, then convert back to SLF (if their uplink is SLF-only), rather than run an SLF processor in parallel (by converting their XML to SLF and injecting it into the
SLF processor).

Done at a high level, these conversions will likely clean up much of the nodelisted data, perhaps at the cost of pissing some lower *Cs off who are currently doing their own thing.


-- Scott Little [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod@sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+
* Origin: Cyberia: All your msgbase are belong to us! (3:712/848)

Dale,

Then again his IQ might be half of what Scott's is.

It isn't. Even the MENSA scale doesn't measure as high as twice Jan's - or mine for that matter. :-)

Drop the personal attacks because they do nothing /GOOD/.

We do not know each other. You simply cannot give orders like that and expect to be obeyed. To begin with, it is impudent and you are clearly not a rude person.

There was actually no personal attack and you are mistaken if you have interpreted it that way. You should read more carefully and less emotionally.

Your concern is based on your ignorance and nothing more.

My ignorance was what prompted me to ask for an explanation in the first place. That is absolutely natural and normal. Scott gave a cliche ridden series
of arrogant defensive reflexes instead of the explanation I asked for. You have
done much the same in this message, without a word of explanation, but also without his petulance.

Again your ignorance is showing. Not a single person
that has suggested or
is working on an XML nodelist has suggested anything
close to this.

Scott's article clearly implied internet use. Take it up with him.

Again your ignorance is showing. PTSN happens to part
of the XML nodelist we are working on.

See two paragraphs above. When you see ignorance it is your plain duty to ameliorate it. You haven't attempted it even yet. What is wrong with you guys? Is the information classified?

Bill, /YOU/ are the one that is in need of making a
better case. You are
either arguing from an ignorant position /OR/ you are
deliberately spreading
FUD.

I am not advocating change, Dale. You are. If you wish to change the status
quo the onus is on you, not me.

However, your message has been overtaken by events. I now know from completely different sources that what you are advocating is harmless. I even said so in an article I wrote yesterday. It's a pity you didn't read it.

I will point out that your mail, polite as it was, did absolutely nothing to enlighten the ignorance which you found so obvious, and which I freely confessed in my first article. Perhaps you should just explain when people ask you to. It would be easier for all concerned and much better for your blood pressure than all this argy-bargy. :-)

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)

Done at a high level, these conversions will likely clean up
much of the nodelisted data, perhaps at the cost of pissing
some lower *Cs off who are currently doing their own thing.

well, there's a tool to let the IC have a play with, then <<wink>> <<<GGG>>>

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

If you couldn't understand what I said above, a simply
"Huh?" would have sufficed. Instead you started
crapping on about the apocalypse..

It was you who wrote incomprehensible nonsense about the skies falling. You
must be confusing me with somebody else.

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)

Hi Jasen

There's more to programming than either a high IQ or rote learning. It also
needs the talent for programming. Not everybody has it or needs it.

I'd have hoped for some improvement at least :)

Amen! Otherwise it's a pointless undertaking.

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)