Aminet 15

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Aminet 15 / Aminet 15 - Nov 1996.iso / Aminet / comm / fido / fnews4.lzh / fido448.nws < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1987-12-27 | 46KB | 944 lines

Volume 4, Number 48 28 December 1987 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Contributing Editors: Dale Lovell, 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. 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. SEASON'S GREETINGS Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 Swan Song ................................................ 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2 Modem, Modem, whose got the Modem? ....................... 2 A Storm Is On The Horizon ................................ 7 The Other Side of MetroNet ............................... 11 3. NOTICES .................................................. 14 The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 14 Latest Software Versions ................................. 14 FidoNews 4-48 Page 1 28 Dec 1987 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Swan Song I've always been big on giving out free advice. Some would call that a shortcoming, but at least I occasionally take my own advice. I remember in particular one company I used to work for. Every week they had a staff meeting I was required to go to, and every week the head of the company would encourage anyone who had any criticisms to stand up and speak his peace. Never having learned to be especially diplomatic (I was once told that I had the tact and subtlety of a Sherman tank), I would take him at his word and speak out. This had several unfortunate side effects, one of which was that disgruntled employees started standing around my desk complaining about how awful things were. They would be surprised to discover that I wasn't very sympathetic. I generally told them that, if things were all that intolerable, then they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the day came where something happened that I found intolerable. Within the hour my letter of resignation was on my supervisor's desk and I was out the door. I've never had cause to regret that. What does all this have to do with FidoNet? Patience, I'm getting to that. Quite some time ago (more time than I care to think about, actually) Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker roped me into helping them figure out how to run this net. This was before we made it democratic, so there wasn't a whole lot in the way of feedback. We worked under the premise that if anyone was really unhappy with what we were doing, they'd leave and form their own net. So once again it's time for me to take my own advice. For a number of reasons I'm unhappy about how things are going these days, so I'm leaving to help form a new net. This will be my last issue of FidoNews. Dale Lovell will be taking over as the FidoNews publisher starting next week. To all of you who have been supportive for lo these many moons, you have my sincere and heartfelt thanks. To all the rest, no hard feelings. Best of luck to all of you. By and large, it's been fun. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-48 Page 2 28 Dec 1987 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Bob Morris, Co-Chair, FTSC High-Speed Modem Committee 16/0 After three months of testing, it is finally out, at least for a couple of manufacturers we, the committee, have tested the name brands with more to come. If you had thought that we were going to recommend a modem, well, you will have to make your own decision! As a committee we have decided that we would undertake this task with you, the sysop and user in mind. As such, we will not be making a decision as to what should be or should not be a "Standard" for the FidoNet community. What we have done is to evaluate these modems "Out of the Box" so that we would do a equal comparison of what happens when you get the boxes yourselves. As of this writing, we have looked at and tested the Telebit Trailblazer, the Microcom AX9624c, the Hayes V-Series 9600 and the US Robotics HST with MNP 5. We have also started to look at the Ven-Tel Pathfinder 18K modem, which is compatible with the Trailblazer and is the only other modem on the market that is compatible with any of the other brands at high speed. The testing on the Hayes, Robotics and Ven-Tel is basically unfinished at this time, but we thought that it was time to at least report on what we have found to date. The prices for the modems vary from the HST at $495.00 to $672.50 for the Trailblazer modem. Additionally, we have not yet tested the Trailblazer Plus within the Fido Compatible software available, nor were we able to bring into our testing a copy of Fido V 12, but we will assume that it is compatible with the current software versions in use today. Many of the manufacturers have been more than willing to assist us in this endeavor and have contacted us to insure that the products we had were operating properly. We must state at this time that the V.29 "Standard" which exists today is not a true data communications standard but one which exists for FAX machines and the transmission of data for those pieces of equipment. The high speed modem standard will probably be based upon the V.32 standard under which we can probably expect that all of the manufacturers will have equipment which talks to one another at high speed. All modems tested talked to other brands at at least 2400 BPS. Data transmission to locations outside of the Continental United States were tested and the modem which communicated the best via high speed using a registered data jack and a "Data Line" was the Trailblazer, which obtained 815 CPS to Australia. However, this modem is fairly well distributed overseas and has been accepted, as the V.29 standard, in a number of countries outside of the United States. It is important to note that owners of systems which are based FidoNews 4-48 Page 3 28 Dec 1987 upon the 8088 which run on an original clock speed of 4.77 MHz should be aware that a problem does exist when attempting to utilize these modems above 9600 bps. According to most of the documentation available at the time, the data bus cannot handle sustained speeds of 9600 or greater. This would limit the speed of the modem, but XT and XT Clone owners can expect between 3600 and 9600 BPS, AT owners can expect between 7200 and 13000 when using systems equipped with the 16450 UART and machine speeds of at least 6 MHz when dealing with archived data as is found in Echomail and file transfers of Archived data. There is a new term which is CPS, which is the character throughput with these new modems. CPS, simply stated, is the character count expressed as actual characters (10bits = 1 Character). Therefore if throughput is expressed as 1320 CPS, then the actual throughput (in old and familiar terms) is 13200 BPS. The following is a report dealing with the Microcom AX9624c and the Telebit Trailblazer. Both of these modems operated on both the AT&T PC6300 Plus and an ARC Turbo AT Clone, both of these machines worked in different environments, the AT&T utilized SEADog 4.1 as the communications program and operates at 6MHz utilizing the 8250 UART. The ARC Turbo AT utilized OPUS 1.03a as both the BBS program as well as the mailer, this AT uses the 16450 UART and an 8MHz clock. The Microcom was equipped with the current version of the Firmware (ROM Version 1.6) and the Telebit was equipped with their current version (Rom Version 3.00). The Microcom utilizes MNP Class 6 as a form of error correction, but the Microcom's implementation appears to be less tolerant of noisy Central Offices, weather changes and long distance connections. If utilized within a one hundred (100) mile radius the modem appears to communicate reliably with another Microcom of the same type. Technical support is available for the product, but this support is somewhat onesided, when called about a problem, they do not appear to have the desire to call back with a solution if one is found. On two occasions I have had to make calls to obtain the answer to a question which was given to them. They have stated that the modem works best when "No Protocol" is used to transmit the data. This would require Opus, Seadog, BinkleyTerm and presumably Fido Version 12 to provide for this modem and develop some sort of protocol when talking to another Microcom. Users of this modem will notice that the modem must be sent the dialing string twice in order for it to actually dial the number. It also appears to be slower to respond to commands issued from the keyboard (Opus' "K" command for example). The Trailblazer works directly out of the box, just like the Microcom, but requires a different type of setup string, in that Telebit utilizes internal switches instead of the more recognizable commands. The Trailblazer appears to talk well in almost every situation, yet to be tested is the super long FidoNews 4-48 Page 4 28 Dec 1987 distance communication to a super noisy central office environment. The physical size of this modem is larger than the Microcom but also provided is a fan for cooling and an on/off switch. The options, once written into the memory of the machine remain there until changed by the Sysop. This modem works in both the Opus and SEAdog environments and it is assumed to also work in the Fido Version 12 environment. Technical support was not used during the first 120 days of the test but additional data will be attached to the next report if it is utilized. Modem set-up for the Telebit Trailblazer and the Ven-Tel Pathfinder 18K are as follows: E1 F1 M0 Q0 P V1 X1 S0=1 S1=0 S2=43 S3=13 S4=10 S5=8 S6=2 S7=60 S8=2 S9=6 S10=7 S11=70 S12=50 S45=0 S47=4 S48=0 S49=0 S50=0 S51=5 S52=1 S53=1 S54=3 S55=0 S56=17 S57=19 S58=2 S59=0 S60=0 S61=13 S62=3 S63=1 S64=0 S65=0 S66=1 S67=0 S68=2 S90=0 S91=0 S92=0 S95=0 S100=0 S101=0 S102=0 S104=0 S110=255 S111=255 S112=1 S121=0 Note: Pathfinder settings differ a bit. Set S09=3, S53=4 and S64=1 when using Binkley Term. SEAdog Init Strings (4.1) Modem (Type Not used) MODEM COM1 Modem Lock 19200 OR 9600 FOR XT'S Modem Init AT E1 V1 X1 S0=1 S7=50 Modem Reset AT S0=0 OPUS 1.03a Modem Init ~|AT E1 V1 X1 S0=1 S7=55| config.sys entry DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,19200 FOR AT CLASS MACHINES -or- DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,9600 FOR XT CLASS MACHINES The Microcom AX9624c has external switches which must be set before the modem is placed on line. The rear switch bank contains 8 switches, all switches must be up except for switches 3 and 7. On the front panel, switches 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are up with the others (2, 3, 4, 5 and 8) are down. Additionally, the A/S switch must be released and in an out position. The Init strings for the Microcom is as follows: SEAdog 4.1 FidoNews 4-48 Page 5 28 Dec 1987 MODEM H24 MODEM COM1 MODEM BAUD 19200 OR 9600 FOR XT SYSTEMS MODEM SETUP AT H0 M0 E0 X4 V1 Q0 S0=1 S7=55 \V1 \Q0 \X0 \N3 %C1 \J0 MODEM RESET ATZ Opus 1.03a Modem Init AT H0 M0 E0 X4 V1 Q0 S0=1 S7=55 \V1 \Q0 \X0 \N3 %C1 \J0 Config.sys Entry DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,19200 FOR AT'S -or- DEVICE=X00.SYS E B,0,9600 FOR XT'S The Hayes V-Series 9600 Modem was then tested by the committee and was found to be able to communicate with another Hayes V- Series 9600 in either an Opus to Opus or an Opus to Seadog or Seadog to Seadog envirnoment. Throughput on this modem, using standard Echomail packets did not exceed 628 CPS, but when used in a standalone environment, file transfers did approach 800 CPS when using ZModem protocol for file up/downloads. The set up used on this modem is the same one as found in the OPUS.CTL file. It is important to note that although this modem gave the lowest average transfer rates, the representatives from Hayes are continuing to work with the committee to evaluate the setting utilized and attempt to isolate the problem. There will be furthur testing on this modem, providing that Hayes will allow us to have access to the modem in the future. Until that time, we will simply state that the modem does work in all of the current environments in use today. The committee also obtained two of the new US Robotics HST modems equipped with the MNP 5 programming. To date our testing has shown that when tranferring data from one of these new modems to a "Old Style" HST, the new modems do not appear to be downwardly compatible with the older modems. These modems when talking to another MNP5 modem become very sensitive when using either XModem or similiar protocols. As the tests are not completed at this time for these new modems the report on this modem will be forwarded at the time that the tests are completed. It is important to note that in almost all cases, when dealing with a modem which utilizes MNP Protocol 4, 5 or 6 that there appears to occur a condition in which the modem to modem link becomes questionable to the modems themselves and causes major problems when using protocols which utilize error corrction routines, such as XModem, since it appears that the two error checking routines clash with one another. This clash appears to cause a loss in data transfer rates from 35-60% of the rated speed of the interface (UART). The committee is also evaluating the Ven-Tel Pathfinder 18K modem FidoNews 4-48 Page 6 28 Dec 1987 for use within our environment. The Pathfinder also uses PEP, Packetized Ensemble Protocol like the Trailblazer, and it's major positive attractions are the smaller size and the setup which duplicates the Trailblazer. In discussions with the Regional Manager from Microcom, there appears to be some inconsistancies when dealing with protocols which within themselves provide for error checking. This is evidenced by the lower transfer rates using Xmodem type protocols and the higher transfer rates under YModem or IModem. This particular company has stated that they are planning on offering a PROM change which will allow high speed without MNP 4, 5 or 6. From all of the conversations that we have seen, both in EchoMail areas as well as in Private NetMail, there has been a lot of discussion concerning which modem if any should be selected as a standard for high speed data transmission. It doubtful that any of the manufacturers, except for Telebit, have the capacity available to them within the existing modems to duplicate the protocols of any of the other brands currently in the marketplace. It is felt that at the current V.29 standard there will exist no one standard, therefore the battle for marketshare will be made by price alone and not by the technology itself. The V.32 standard, however, will force each of the manufacturers to adopt one standard for High Speed data communications and will force the standard as it will be an International Standard for all manufacturers and not open to interpretation by each of the modem manufacturers. Until that happens, it is doubtful that any one manufacturer will be able to capture more than a percentage of the market. Anyone wishing to forward their comments may do so to me at 16/0 or 16/2. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-48 Page 7 28 Dec 1987 This is a copy of an open echo mail message I received on 12/14/87. My reply to this message is also here. I think everyone should read both of these and send comments as soon as possible. This could have a drastic effect on our Net, and we need input (good or bad) from EVERY Sysop in the Net as soon as possible. Date: 12-12-87 19:13 From: David Hart To: William Bertholff Subj: AN OPEN MESSAGE I feel obligated to comment on today's Sysop meeting which, in my opinion, was nothing less than a fiasco. On or about November 13, you asked us by netmail if we would be interested in attending a Sysop meeting to explore forming a Sysop Association. One month was adequate notice but the meeting was not confirmed until about one week ago. At that time, you sent the original respondents the files for the meeting including an agenda, "proposed" articles of the Association and a statement of ethics. Though the entire Net 107 could be effected by these actions, you chose to supply this material only to those individuals who indicated an interest in attending. You have subsequently stated that the files were posted at the IGATE (who would know and so what?). A few days ago, you and I spoke by telephone. Rather than discuss any of the issues at hand we discussed the format of the meeting. I thought that we both agreed that the format would be a forum to openly discuss our views. I expressed my fears that the meeting would become either autocratic or technocratic. You assured me this would not be the case. I arrived, as schedule at 12:00 noon. You arrived, without apology, at 1:00 PM. From the outset, you made it very clear that this was your meeting. You stifled discussion. You yelled and screamed (like a child) at cross talk. Nevertheless you made no attempt to follow an agenda or do anything in a democratic or in a professional manner. Now I run a prosperous company. I have been the COO of a $40,000,000 organization and I won't be subjected to your temper tantrums. During the first hour, in your absence, I spoke with the attorney who you had hired (without anybody's consent). I was informed FidoNews 4-48 Page 8 28 Dec 1987 that you had encumbered (without authorization) the association- to-be to the tune of $2,500 which the lawyer had agreed to discount to $700. I also learned that you instructed counsel (without prior consent of anyone else) to form a FOR PROFIT corporation. From a tax and organizational standpoint this would be preposterous but in true Bertholff style, ya' just did it! This meant that my buy in would include assumption of YOUR structure and YOUR legal fees. Frankly, a better first step would have been to form the association and then to have the association retain counsel and draft by-laws in accordance with the wishes of the membership as contrasted to the wishes of William. During the "meeting" you presented and allowed some other people to present their views for what the association could and should be. We differed in that YOU were suggesting that the association, by natural process over time become net 107 (or visa versa). I agreed and suggested that the association become the legal entity formed by Net 107. I felt that your approach was deceptive to the Net but you didn't want to hear it and wouldn't allow discussion. We both know that, though this was not a net 107 meeting you were attempting to form a legal entity that would control the net. You admitted as much. Unfortunately, your way of doing things is through self-egrandizing subterfuge. You then asked that we agree to accept the by-laws which were never discussed. You further suggested that we agree to meet again in late February to elect officers. I suggested that we form a steering committee to author a "Call for Comment" of net 107 of the by-laws as you had drafted them and that the steering committee draft revised by-laws based on the input of the entire net. These would then be presented for ratification in the February meeting. No time would be lost but some of your power might be. Others suggested that this might not be practical and that the by-laws could "always be changed". However I think some people lost sight of the fact that this change would have to then be by 2/3 majority rather than a simple majority. Therefor, it is possible that a minority could effectively control the organization. You then had the unmitigated gall to present the situation as your way or no way. NO DISCUSSION, NO IDEAS, NO DISAGREEMENT; King Bertholff. I tried to get my point across diplomatically and inoffensively but you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you. At this point, you slammed a fist down on the table, had an enormous temper tantrum and stormed out of the room. You behaved FidoNews 4-48 Page 9 28 Dec 1987 like a 3 year old child who couldn't get his way. You asked those who disagreed with your approach to leave and I did (strange form of democracy). I came prepared to join (check in wallet). I left with nothing. I call for your immediate resignation as Network Host. If that does not occur I will ask those who feel as I do to form a "more perfect" network in this area! David Cary Hart --- * Origin: Cary Hart Assoc CareerPath BBS:212-696-9777 (Opus 1:107/117) Here is my reply to the above message. Date: 12-14-87 10:33 From: Gene Coppola To: David Hart Subj: Re: AN OPEN MESSAGE This is a reply to the echo mail about the meeting held Saturday. I was at first in favor of this new association. Now I am not so sure! Here are some of my concerns. The first question I have is a simple one. I am a host/hub for a private network (33 systems - Pace University) and have been refused the use of certain software granted to other hubs/hosts in the normal network. If 107 incorporates and becomes a FOR PROFIT corporation will they lose the right to use some of IFNA's software as well? If so, then this could be a problem. The second question I have is regarding taxes. Stockholders in a FOR PROFIT corp. must pay taxes on earnings, if I understand the IRS laws on this matter? Also, who pays the corporation taxes, etc; required by state law? Third, what state will this corporation be started in? Fourth, what protection if any will it grant a sysop from liability resulting from, incorrect phone numbers, messages containing information not normally public (unknown to sysop) and other protections? And, does not IFNA provide these same protections as well? Fifth, as a FOR PROFIT corporation, does it not go against the very reasons behind the initial formation of Fidonet? Sixth, if a node currently in Net107 refuses to join the corporation does he lose the right to use his hub, and the resulting OGATE? FidoNews 4-48 Page 10 28 Dec 1987 Seventh, by forming this corporation, will the resulting Net still be included in the official "IFNA NODELIST"? Perhaps not, we will have to see how IFNA will rule on this A comment from IFNA would be nice if IFNA cares to make one on what effect it would have. Eighth, what costs would be involved both to the sysops who join, and the sysops who don't join? Will the IGATE start charging to handle incoming mail? Will the OGATE start charging to handle outgoing mail? Will OTHER Nets charge to handle mail from 107 systems? And last, since Net 107 is NOW IN EXISTENCE, I feel that any move like this to organize should be made, by FIRST applying to the Regional Coordinator for a NEW Net Number Assignment for the corporation. I am sure there will be some people who WILL NOT desire to join, so why inconvenience them? If people feel a need to form a new corporation then they should break away and obtain a new Net number for their group! There are plenty of people in Net107 who can take over the various duties, if it comes to this! I think this is a SERIOUS issue, that needs to be fully discussed BEFORE anyone votes on this matter. Comments pro and con are welcome from anyone interested! That ends my reply. I am not saying that anything in the above reply will come true. These are just questions I feel I need answers to BEFORE I vote on this matter. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-48 Page 11 28 Dec 1987 Sak, 107/529 The Other Side of MetroNet Apparently, the meeting of December 12th didn't satisfy everyone. A message has been going around the net intended to explain the events of that meeting in such a way as to color William Bertholff as Hitler. Seeing as I also attended this meeting, I thought another point of view might balance the net's perception a bit better. About a month or so prior to the meeting, Bill posted a net wide invitation to all sysops. As a courtesy, I responded saying that I doubted that I could manage to make it into NYC. Bill called me voice and helped arrange a ride for me. Later, the meeting's location was changed to New Brunswick and my commuting problem vanished. Nonetheless, it should be noted that when I showed even the slightest bit of interest, Bill responded, and responded in a manner intended to solve those problems that stood between me and my attendance. At some point during the next few weeks, I received a call from Bill notifying me that several files would be sent to my system. He explained further that these files were the definitive documents of a proposed BBS related organization and should be, therefore, read carefully. In other words, he was calling a meeting to show his peers the work he had done and asking them to accept or reject it. Granted, those that didn't respond to that invitation, may not have had the background I did, but, considering the amount of work such a task entails, I can surely understand making those who showed interest the target of the work. Egos, being what they are, and practicality, being what it is, often collide in bruised self-interest. Most understand and make room for this relationship; some don't and, in so doing, belittle all but superhuman efforts. The meeting was to start at 12 noon. Bill wasn't there at that time so the lawyer retained by Bill opened the meeting. He explained that: 1) he in no way represented any incumbrance to anyone in the room, 2) only in the event the organization was accepted by the group did he expect any payment at all, 3) he was willing to discount his fee for the sake of the organization creation, 4) such and organization was necessary for numerous reasons (of which he gave very good examples), and 5) related his background in law to verify his credentials. FidoNews 4-48 Page 12 28 Dec 1987 Of the Sysops present (maybe 25 at the time, although the number grew to over 40), two Sysops assumed a confrontational posture asserting that Bill had no right to retain a lawyer for them, nor did the lawyer have any right to incumber them. The lawyer simply restated that no one was incumbered and that Bill alone had retained him. Nonetheless, these two pressed the same questions again and again. In fact, discussion was reduced to a three way conversation to the exclusion of the rest of us. At about 1pm Bill arrived. The anonymous message's author maintains that he did so without apology. This is untrue. He apologized about missing his train, and immediately got down to business. He began by asking everyone present to make some noncontroversial changes to the articles and ethics standards. These changes were culled over the preceding week from conversations with several sysops. Largely these changes were inconsequential to the sense of the document, save the change from 3 board members to 5. Next, he explained the "big picture" (i. e., the why's and wherefore's of such and organization). Then he opened the meeting to questions from the floor. During the question period, one of the two sysops that had previously taken the lawyer to task, demanded that he be allowed to make a statement. Bill reminded him that he was taking questions at present, that there would be a time for comments later. The sysop persisted, making asking question very difficult in deed. Nonetheless, quite a few were asked, and Bill answered them all candidly. Once the questions stopped, and after another sysop announced that he supported the proposed organization (over Bill's objections that he too was out of order, I might add), a ten minute break was announced so that sysops could talk among themselves. The break lasted 20 minutes and everyone exchanged opinions. The meeting reconvened, and the floor was opened for discussion. The sysop that demanded to make a statement during the question period, now demanded to ask questions. Once again this sysop asserted that Bill had no right to do any of the things he had done; that Bill had some how stolen everyone's rights. I think at this point everyone was pretty fed up with the same questions, the same accusations, the same "if-you-make-your-idea-MY-idea- I'll-be-quiet", but order was the privilege of the chair. Bill did attempt to call order any number of times, but this sysop persisted in trying to assert his out-of-order questions. Finally, Bill slammed his fist to the table and demanded order. With that, a very small contingent of sysops walked out. Thus the letter of complaint came to be. In it the writer lays claim to superior business judgement by stating that he runs his own organization and once was the CEO of a $40,000,000 firm. I wish I could tell you how many times I heard that at the meeting. I also run my own company and have done so for more than 10 years; I think I can make business FidoNews 4-48 Page 13 28 Dec 1987 decisions too, and most of mine have paid off just fine. I would like to tell the writer of that message here and now that his resume doesn't mean that "no one else can think". Besides, the moderate successes that it reports seem to indicate a downhill trend. The letter also states that incorporating in NYC is the wrong thing to do. I have my own opinion on this, but I do remember this post-CEO of a $40,000,000 company proclaiming to the meeting that he could offer NYC office space should the company be incorporated there. It's interesting that now, once the post-CEO of a $40,000,000 company walked out of the meeting, this has become a bad idea altogether and proof of bad decision making. Furthermore, the letter states that it is terrible that the lawyer and Bill incumbered the organization-to-be. I sure would like to know what the author expected. It seems to me, we received the cheapest legal advice any of us are likely to get. It also seems to me, the lawyer bent over backwards to be as accommodating fee-wise as is humanly possible. If anything, I'd say that Bill cut a mean deal, and that we should all be grateful for it. The author maintains that a FOR-PROFIT organization is ridiculous, that it should be NONPROFIT organization. I'll really have to check my facts here, but I believe there are far more governmental regulations and red tape attached to nonprofit organizations than there are to for-profit organizations. Furthermore, the tax liability issue is easily managed by virtue of the organization's ability to manage its profits. Once again, it seems to me, the choice was a wise one. The letter also mentioned that by buying into the organization, one would also be buying into Bill's legal fees and organizational structures. I never bought into anything that didn't have overhead as a cost consideration. CEO's of $40,000,000 companies usually deal with this concept daily. Be that as it may, buying into the structure still remains. As far as I can remember, I must have seen 100 different structures for as many organizations. Most of them seem to work as long as the people involved want them to. It's pretty obvious to me, overhead and organizational structure aren't really the objections here; rather they are skinned egos and self-importance. All in all, I have to say I'm glad Bill took the bull by the horns. For too long the net has been talking about the weather but doing nothing about it. Now, that one of our members has taken the initiative to do something about it, some seem to feel cheated rather than gratified. Perhaps this is a natural feeling. Bill's action has underscored the notion that other people have good ideas too . . . with or without CEO approval. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-48 Page 14 28 Dec 1987 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 1 Jan 1988 Genesis of the Intergalactic Sysop Alliance, and publication of the first AlterNet node list. 9 Jan 1988 The next net 104 FidoNet Sysop Meeting. Contact Oscar Barlow at 104/0 for information. 26 Jan 1988 Australia Day. Australia celebrates 200 years of colonization. 25 Aug 1988 (pending BoD approval) 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 3.3* SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.85* EchoMail 1.31 TBBS 2.0M MGM 1.1 * 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 4-48 Page 15 28 Dec 1987 __ 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 4-48 Page 16 28 Dec 1987 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___________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------