TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 6530.fido_othernet@1:124/5016 2c3f74bb   
   REPLY: 808.fido_othernet@1:135/115 2c3f262f   
   PID: Synchronet 3.20e-Linux master/546725fc5 Mar 15 2025 GCC 13.3.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.24-Linux master/546725fc5 Mar 15 2025 GCC 13.3.0   
   BBSID: EOTLBBS   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:00:39 -0500   
   "Dan Clough" (1:135/115)  wrote:   
      
   >   Re: Re: LinuxNet   
   >   By: Nigel Reed to All on Tue Feb 25 2025 03:45 pm   
   >    
   >  > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:36:37 -0600   
   >  > "Dan Clough" (1:135/115)  wrote:   
   >  >     
   >  > > -=> Sean Rima wrote to Andrew Leary <=-     
   >  >     
   >  > >  -=> Andrew Leary wrote to Dan Clough <=-     
   >  >     
   >  > >  DC>>  > Can you advise on the current state of LinuxNet?  Is it   
   >  > >  DC>>  > still a viable network these days?  Thanks.     
   >    
   >  > >  AL> LinuxNet is still operating, barely.  I can't get a response   
   >  > >  AL> from Chad most of the time, although his system is still   
   >  > >  AL> running and accepting mail.  I am still producing the   
   >  > >  AL> distributed LinuxNet nodelists, although I have no   
   >  > >  AL> confirmation that they are actually making it out to Chad's   
   >  > >  AL> downlinks.     
   >  >     
   >  > >  AL> All in all, I'm starting to think that there's not much   
   >  > >  AL> reason to continue it.  Perhaps the FidoNet LINUX echo   
   >  > >  AL> would be a more realistic place to discuss anything related   
   >  > >  AL> to Linux.     
   >    
   >  > > I am actually considering starting up an "alternative"   
   >  > > Linux-focused network, and wondering if there would be interest.   
   >  > >  One thing different would certainly be that it would be   
   >  > > actively maintained...     
   >  >     
   >  > > Anyone that might be interested in such a thing - I'd be glad to   
   >  > > hear your thoughts on it...     
   >    
   >  > I would much rather see someone else take control of Linuxnet   
   >  > rather than start up a new network.   
   >  >   
   >  > Why not talk to the current owner about taking over if he doesn't   
   >  > have time to work and promote it? That is something I would get   
   >  > behind. I don't think I'd want to try and start another new   
   >  > network from scratch.     
   >    
   > An update on this... I've tried to contact the current LinuxNet   
   > operator via Netmail, Email, Echomail, and his local BBS message   
   > base; for the last three weeks or so, with no response whatsoever.   
   > So either he's ignoring or is just out of the loop completely.   
   >    
   > Not sure what the next step is at this point.  I've got an outline of   
   > a plan for starting a replacement Net and may do that by sometime   
   > next month.  I've got some work/travel demands that will keep me too   
   > busy until then.   
   >    
   > Still interested in comments from you all on whether that's a good   
   > idea, or some alternatives.  I know there is a Fido Linux echo that   
   > is mostly quiet, and not sure if that is a surefire indicator of how   
   > a new Net would do, or not.  Your thoughts are welcome if you have   
   > any. --- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux   
   >  * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL *   
   > (1:135/115)   
      
   Just declare yourself 110:0/0 and have the hubs point to you. Done.   
   --    
   End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX   
   telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23   
   --- SBBSecho 3.24-Linux   
    * Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)   
   SEEN-BY: 18/200 19/25 38 50 105/81 106/1 201 987 124/0 5014 5016 128/187   
   SEEN-BY: 129/305 130/330 153/7715 154/110 218/700 226/30 227/114 229/110   
   SEEN-BY: 229/114 200 206 275 300 307 317 400 426 428 470 550 664 700   
   SEEN-BY: 229/705 266/512 280/464 291/111 292/854 320/219 322/757 342/200   
   SEEN-BY: 387/18 25 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 902/26 5075/35   
   PATH: 124/5016 396/45 229/426