Text 544, 146 rader
Skriven 2004-10-25 10:30:26 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
     Kommentar till en text av Maurice Kinal (1:153/401.1)
Ärende: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
================================
"Maurice Kinal -> Robert Couture" <1:153/401.1> wrote:

 MK> True but then if they don't get airtime on the network due to lack of
 MK> compatibility then what?  Who gets to dictate what is an acceptable or
 MK> compliant message?

The software developers and the FTSC.

 MK> Nobody probably will.  Consider if these people never see the messages
 MK> in question.  How would you know?

That's simple enough.  Someone would see a quoted message that the original
was not visible and query as to what happened to the original.  It has
happened before.

 MK> Also consider if someone did know but thought it best for whatever reason,
 MK> right or wrong, not to say anything at all and leave well enough alone.
 MK> Almost exactly what I decided to do.

True.  And for whatever reasons, you are wrong in not disclosing the
information.  How can things improve if you have people with the knowledge
refusing to assist.  In this case, your irrational hatred of an OS and
people who use it, is the only reason you will not share.

To me, that is just stupid.

 MK> The only reason I don't tell you is because you people won't listen
 MK> when bugs are pointed out and would rather not subject anyone else to
 MK> unreasonable demands.

Again, here you are wrong.  The author is willing to listen and fix the bug
with a mind towards eradicating a definciency in a standard.

You, on the other hand are stalwartly opposed to assisting "a Windows
programmer."  You would rather insult and demean that person.

So the only one that is wrong here is you.  If you were to reveal this
mythical software piece, perhaps a MSGID format that not only resolves the
deficiencies that are current in the standard but is also backwards
compatible with this piece of software could be achieved.

Either that, or the standard gets updated and the author of that software
will need to update his software to meet the standards.

FidoNet Standards have changed over the years to cope with differing
technologies and to meet new challenges.

 RC>> Besides, the idea has now been tackled a different way.

 MK> Whatever.  Doen't really matter, does it?

Well, we won;t know for sure, because you won't assist in making FidoNet a
better technology due to your strange fixation against Windows.

 MK> By bloating it with redundancy????????  It is obvious you guys don't
 MK> have a clue.

No.  You're the one that doesn't have a clue.  You logic when it comes to
resolving capatibility issues when improving existing standards is
seriously flawed.

 MK> Why?

Ask Rob Swindell, he can explain it better than me.

 RC>> Who dropped out?  And was it his own software creation that had the
 RC>> problem?

 MK> The person you aimed the message at and no, not his software.

What, is this guy a know terrorist?  Please, what a joke.  So, if it is not
his software then what the problem?  Oh that's right., your irrational bias
against all that is Windows.

 MK> He quit when he found his name on an internet search gated from a Fido
 MK> echoarea.

And what does that have to do with MSGID's and Windows software?  Do tell.

 MK>   He figured he didn't need you people to do that for him, that he can do
 MK> that for himself if he wanted to.  He saw no use for running extra
 MK> software for Fido.

Good for him.  To each their own.  Still has nothing to do with MSGID's.

And when did this person leave?

 MK> That has nothing to do with the internet.  I don't make much use of the
 MK> web myself so I wouldn't really know.

Sorry to hear that.

 MK> However I also object to Fido messages being available on internet search
 MK> engines.  I think that should be grounds for dismsal on a private network.

It's been going on for years.  If you do not like it, leave FidoNet.  That
is not likely to change.


 RC>> However, your defination of "gated" seems to be strange.  I
 RC>> understand that gated meant from one Network to another ... i.e.;
 MK>   FidoNet to LinuxNet or UseNet.

 MK> Right.  Or internet search engines.  No Fido nodenumber, no Fido messages.

Makes sense.

 RC>> I am just using a different message reader.

 MK> Not the same thing.

It certainly is.  Anyone can access a FidoNet capable BBS and post messages
on FidoNet.  Technically, how one accesses the Fido messages is irrelevent.
Be it, Web, Telnet, dial-up, SMS, NNTP, Listserv, et al.  It is still
accessing the messages via a FidoNet system.

And also, technically, a spider accessing the FidoNet messages from a Fido
System, is but another user.  Just an automated one.

You would be hard pressed to do anything about it.  Ever.

Time to move into the 21st century Maurice.  Antiquated hardware will all
soon be dead from old age and you'll eventually be forced to change.

 MK> Whatever.  The fact that they can't get a simple MSGID straight and
 MK> argue that is someone else's problem or there is no problem is a fool,
 MK> which is also not OS dependant else there would be no Linux SBBS
 MK> systems.  Right?

See, your logic is, indeed, flawed.  The MSGID is not a requirement in
FidoNet Standards AT ALL.  It is optional.  It always has been.

And how do you think MSGID got started?  What is the FTSC's job?  I'll give
you a hint: to document existing standards.  They are not there to create
standards.  (Mind you, that seems a little at odds)

Technology is a fluid thing.  If it were not, we wouldn't be talking today.

So you can live in your sheltered little world and never expand your
horizons.  That is your choice.  However, it is ill-conceived and very
shortsighted of you to impose barriers on improving technology.

Robert.

--- JamNNTPd/Linux 1.0b5 - Mods by Hub2000
 * Origin: Hub2000 FTN News Server (1:229/2000)