-=> Quoting Maurice Kinal to Nancy Backus on 12-23-05  15:24 <=-   
      
    NB> Possibly, on the first point, the caveat being that the differences    
    NB> in HOW things are normally done might make it harder to accomplish...    
    NB> thus agreeing with your second point...  :)   
      
    MK> I thought I was wishy-washy enough to cover all the possible bases.    
    MK> :-)    
      
   Yup.  :)   
      
    MK> Having said that I still believe that a more universal Fido standard   
    MK> that can meet everyone's needs is achivable and could work in today's   
    MK> complex enviroment as well as with the more hardcore minimalistic   
    MK> people such as myself.  The problem with the current situation is very   
    MK> little is supported by anyone, especially the people who came up with   
    MK> whatever they decided was needed at the time.  Thus we are all stuck   
    MK> with making a flawed system somehow work for very few users.  It can be   
    MK> done but then everytime someone who follows the original scheme,   
    MK> whatever that really is, they tend to introduce a new bug into the   
    MK> network and the hardcore minimalists are left wondering if it is worth   
    MK> compensating for.  Unfortunetly the answer appears to lean towards "it   
    MK> ain't worth diddley-squat!" which just furthers the decline.    
      
   So are you saying that a new system is needed for Fido?  It would seem   
   that the only way to really get this more universal system would be to   
   start over, not try to keep cobbling what already exists?  And then,   
   wouldn't the trouble be to get that new system to replace what already   
   is there?  I suspect that that might have been at least partly the   
   intention* of the recent developments in Wildcat, and the development of   
   Synchronet, whether or not they managed to accomplish what is needed.   
      
   Meanwhile, sysops like to stay with what they already know and love, and   
   what seems to be working just fine for them....  :)   
      
    MK> For sure!  Speaking for myself, I haven't had much faith or respect   
    MK> for PC's until I learned how to replicate what a REAL computer does on   
    MK> a PC.  From what I have observed over the years users who started out   
    MK> with PC's - and especially only ever used Windows - tend to be far more   
    MK> trusting then I am of manufactures and software developers then I   
    MK> obviously am.    
      
   Hubby worked on mainframes at work, and I was reluctant to jump into the   
   "having a computer at home" bandwagon.  Once I was finally convinced of   
   the usefulness of the machine, he got a Heathkit/Zenith 286 which he put   
   together for our first PC.  Before that, he had been collecting an odd   
   assortment of parts to cobble together into a hopefully practical home   
   computer at some point in the future... but which he never really had   
   the time for... ;)  He's never been all that enamoured of Windows,   
   although he had to deal with it at work... but he also was using Unix   
   systems and learning machine language and such with his work, so the OS   
   that got put on our 286 was basically MS-DOS, with a number of Unix   
   commands that were compatible.  Over the years, he also wrote a number   
   of little utilities to perform some commands a bit more elegantly.    
   Win3.1 was available to be called up IF a graphics program was needed.   
      
   When we finally upgraded, to a Pentium (not quite cutting edge, after   
   they fixed the math bug, but still fairly early), the first thing   
   Richard did was to UNinstall Win95, and set up the DOS system.  Later,   
   he figured out how to have Win95 be available to be called up when   
   needed but not to be running the show, and then he put it back on the   
   puter, but not until then...  :)   
      
   In between, we got a laptop with a 386... same setup as the 286.  :)   
      
   Radio Shack/Tandy:   
    MK> Sounds like the 80's.  I've never owned or used one of them.  Some of   
    MK> those people seem really hardcore to me but I don't often bump into   
    MK> those people anymore.   
      
   More hardcore than DOS users (or Linux, either)?     
   We never owned or used one of them either.  I know a few people that   
   used to use them, but I don't think I know anyone still using one.   
      
    MK> I agree 100%.  My taste leans towards high quality minimalism which   
    MK> effectively eliminates all software coming from or targetting MS   
    MK> systems.  I've never been a fan of MS stuff but am happy it was   
    MK> successful simply because it made it possible for me to avoid it all   
    MK> and obtain what I figured I needed at any given point 'inexpensively'   
    MK> (<- a relative term).    
      
   I suspect you and hubby would get along well..  :)  He hasn't avoided MS   
   stuff quite so assiduously as you seem to have, but he pretty much makes   
   it a practice not to use most of it whenever possible, from what I've   
   understood.  He obtains a certain degree of 'inexpensive' by writing his   
   own high-quality stripped down programs that do what they should,   
   without any of the bloat.  We haven't gone to Linux, though he is pretty   
   well acquainted with it, and has helped a friend of ours as she figured   
   out her linux system.  :)   
      
    MK> It was a 386.  Cutting edge stuff at the time.  I think it was the   
    MK> late 80's.  Given the lack of good networking software for DOS, which   
    MK> is what I used on there, it required serious hacking.  I forget which   
    MK> compiler I started with on there but it worked okay.  Later when I got   
      
   A little after us, then...   
      
    MK> a 486 things started falling into place but then I had already started   
    MK> making the changeover to Linux and thus quite a bit of the prior   
    MK> hacking fell by the wayside rather dramatically.  I learned so it   
    MK> wasn't a total loss but it would have been easier and better if Linux   
    MK> had sprung onto the scene earlier then it did.  Anyhow that was about   
    MK> 10 years ago, 95-ish, about the time all the silliness associated with   
    MK> Y2K started picking up some steam, or at least it got Hollywoodized.   
       
   I think I got into BBS'ing in the late 80's.  My son had already   
   discovered them, mostly for games (and some trash talk in the local   
   message areas which I was NOT happy about).  He set about to show me   
   that the BBS was a good place, and found genealogy stuff on there for   
   me, and eventually I was hooked, too...   Before he graduated from   
   HS, in 1990, we had the laptop computer, so that both of us could use   
   the computer at the same time (not the phone line, mind you, but at   
   least I could read messages offline... ).  Also by the time he   
   graduated, we had upgraded to the pentium.   
      
    MK> Same here.  I am not a huge fan of the web.  I prefer the oldfashioned   
    MK> stuff when internetting and performance wise it still is the best.  I   
    MK> see a direct corelation between the decline of performance and the   
    MK> development of web browsers.  Of course that is all hidden by the   
    MK> increase of speed of home based internet access.   
      
   Until everything slows to a crawl with all the viruses/trojans/worms   
   they pick up on their computers...?  ;/  Oh, and with Windoze running,   
   and their never turning off the computer to let it clean things up... ;)   
      
   But yes, things seem to happen so quickly that they don't see that   
   things could actually be working so much more efficiently.  :)   
      
    MK> Life is good,   
      
   Indeed.  :)   
      
    MK> P.S.  Merry Christmas to you and yours.   
      
   As well to you and yours.  :)   
      
   ttyl         neb   
      
   ... Teenage Hell: a parent who's into BBSing   
      
   ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20   
      
   --- ViaMAIL!/WC v1.60d   
    * Origin: Chowdanet (401-724-4410) telnet://chowdanet.com  (1:323/120)