284 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
284 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
This is Part Two in the history of FidoNet. It�
|
|
turned out that the original FIDOHIST.DOC (now called�
|
|
FIDOHIST.DC1, or just "Part One") was useful, and many�
|
|
people read it. Unfortunately, by the time everyone read it,�
|
|
it became totally obsolete. Oh well. Here is Part Two.
|
|
|
|
FIDOHIST.DOC covered the early history of FidoNet,�
|
|
why it was done, how it was done, and the reasons for the�
|
|
organization and obscure rituals surrounding node numbers.�
|
|
If you havent read it yet, I suggest you do now, because�
|
|
I'll probably refer to things that won't make any sense�
|
|
otherwise.
|
|
|
|
The original FidoNet was organized very simply; each�
|
|
FidoNet system (each node) had a number that served like a�
|
|
phone number, uniquely identifying it. The NODELIST,�
|
|
generated by the folks in St. Louis that had all FidoNet�
|
|
nodes in it, contains information on all known FidoNet�
|
|
systems. Every system in FidoNet had a current copy of the�
|
|
NODELIST, which served as the directory of systems.
|
|
|
|
(In the interests of brevity I'm leaving out huge�
|
|
amounts of information; I hope you have read FIODHIST.DOC by�
|
|
now ...)
|
|
|
|
FidoNet has been growin7 steadily since it started�
|
|
by accident in May 84 or so. The node list continued to /et�
|
|
out of hand; the ori7inal FIDOHIST.DOC was written to try�
|
|
and help smooth things out. It is impossible to�
|
|
overemphasize the amount of work inrïlved in keeping the�
|
|
node list accurate. Basically, the guys in St. Louis were�
|
|
keeping track of hundreds of FidoNet systems in Boston, Los�
|
|
Angeles, London, Stockholm and Sweden, and publishing the�
|
|
results weekly. There has never been such a comprehensive�
|
|
and accurate list of bulletin board systems generated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We talked for many months as to how we could�
|
|
possibly find a solution to the many problems; it was at the�
|
|
point where if a solution was not found in a few months (by�
|
|
Aug. 85 or so) that FidoNet would collapse due to the sheer�
|
|
weight of it's node list.
|
|
|
|
The newsletter, FidoNews, was, and still is, an�
|
|
integral part of the process of FidoNet. FidoNews is the�
|
|
only thing that unites all FidoNet sysops consistently;�
|
|
please keep up to date on it, and stock it for your users if�
|
|
you have the disk space. And contribute if you can!
|
|
|
|
There were many constraints on the kind of things we�
|
|
could do; we had no money, so it had to be done for zero�
|
|
cost. Centralization was out, so obviously localization was�
|
|
in; just how to do it was a total unknown. We thought of�
|
|
going back to having people in different areas handle new�
|
|
node requests in their area, but that always generated�
|
|
confusion as to who a person should go to, how to avoide�
|
|
having someone requesting a node number from different�
|
|
people simultaneously, etc etc.
|
|
|
|
The old method of routing was very different than�
|
|
the current method, and much more complex; instead of Fido�
|
|
automatically routing to hosts, each sysop had to specify�
|
|
(via the ROUTE.BBS file) how all routing was done in the�
|
|
system. The was done originally by hand, later by John�
|
|
Warren's (102/31) NODELIST program.
|
|
|
|
Then of course there was the problem that no matter�
|
|
what we did, it would not be done overnight. (ha ha.) It�
|
|
would take many weeks at the least, possibly months, so that�
|
|
whatever we did had to be compatible with the old method as�
|
|
well.
|
|
|
|
We went through probably hundreds of ideas in the�
|
|
next few months, some possibly useful, some insane.�
|
|
Eventually the insanity boiled down to a pretty workable�
|
|
system. We chatted by FidoNet and by voice telephone.�
|
|
Eventually, we settled on the two part number scheme, like�
|
|
the phone company does with area codes and exchanges. It�
|
|
accomodated backwards compatibility (you can keep your�
|
|
present node number) and the new "area code" (net number)�
|
|
could be added into an existing field that had been set to�
|
|
zero. (This is why everyone was originally part of net #1).
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a fortunate set of circumstances was to bring�
|
|
Ezra Shapiro and me to St. Louis to speak to the McDonnell�
|
|
Douglas Recreational Computer Club on XXXX 11th, we planned�
|
|
ahead for a national FidoNet sysops meeting that weekend.�
|
|
Ken and Sally Kaplan were kind enough to tolerate having all�
|
|
of us in their living room.
|
|
|
|
The people who showed up were (need that list) The�
|
|
meeting lasted ten continuous hours; it was the most�
|
|
productive meeting I (and most others) had attended. When we�
|
|
were done, we had basically the whole thing layed out in�
|
|
every detail.
|
|
|
|
We stuck with the area code business (now known as�
|
|
net and region numbers) and worked out how to break things�
|
|
up into regions and nets. It was just one of those rare but�
|
|
fortunate events; during the morning things went "normally",�
|
|
but in the afternoon solutions fell into place one by one,�
|
|
so that by late afternoon we had the entire picture laid out�
|
|
in black and white. Two or three months of brainstorming�
|
|
just flowed smoothly into place in one afternoon ...
|
|
|
|
What we had done was exactly what we have now,�
|
|
though we changed the name of "Admin" to "Region", and added�
|
|
the "alternate" node and net numbers. (We still seem to be�
|
|
stuck with that terrible and inaccurate word, "manager". Any�
|
|
ideas?) I previously had a buggy test hack running using�
|
|
area codes, and the week after the meeting it was made to�
|
|
conform to what we had talked about that Saturday.
|
|
|
|
When version 10C was done, it accomplished more or�
|
|
less everything we wanted, but it sure did take a long time.�
|
|
10C was probably the single largest change ever made to�
|
|
Fido/FidoNet, and the most thoroughly tested version. At�
|
|
10M, there are STILL bugs left from that early version, in�
|
|
spite of the testing.
|
|
|
|
Once the testing got serious, and it looked like we�
|
|
had a shippable version, St. Louis froze the node list, and�
|
|
started slicing it into pieces, to give to the soon-to-be�
|
|
net and region managers. (That word again.) This caused a�
|
|
tremendous amount of trouble for would-be sysops; not only�
|
|
was it difficult enough to figure out how on earth to get a�
|
|
node number, once they did they were told node numbers�
|
|
weren't being given out just yet. Explaining why was even�
|
|
harder, since FIDOHIST.DC2 (ahem) wasn't written yet. (I�
|
|
have to agree, this thing is a little bit late) It was a�
|
|
typical case of those who already knew were informaed�
|
|
constantly of updates, but thse in the dark had a hard time.�
|
|
Things were published fairly regularly (am I remembering�
|
|
"conveniently" or "accurately" on this part?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually, 10C was released, and seemed to work�
|
|
fairly well, ignoring all the small scale disasters due to�
|
|
bugs, etc. We couldn't just swap over to the new area code�
|
|
business until very close to 100% of all Fidos were using�
|
|
the new version. This was (for me) an excruciating period,�
|
|
basically a "hurry up and wait" situation. There had not�
|
|
been a node list release for a month or two, and for all�
|
|
practical purposes it looked like FidoNet had halted ...
|
|
|
|
Finally, on June 12th, we all swapped over to the�
|
|
new system; that afternoon, sysops were to set their net�
|
|
number (it had been "1" for backwards compatibility), copy�
|
|
in the new node list issued just for this occasion, and go.�
|
|
I assumed the result was going to be perpetual chaos,�
|
|
bringing about the collapse of FidoNet. Almost the exact�
|
|
opposite was true; things went very smoothly (yes, there�
|
|
were problems, but when you consider that FidoNet consists�
|
|
of microcomputers owned by almost 300 people who had never�
|
|
even talked to each other ...)
|
|
|
|
Within a month or so,just about every Fido had�
|
|
swapped over to the area code, or net/node architecture.�
|
|
With a few exceptions, things went very smoothly. No one was�
|
|
more suprised than pessimistic I. At this time, August, I�
|
|
don't think there is a single system still using the old�
|
|
node number method.
|
|
|
|
This is all well and fine as far as the software�
|
|
goes, but it made a mess for new sysops. For us sysops who�
|
|
have been around for a while, there was no great problem, as�
|
|
we saw the changes happen one by one. However, new sysops�
|
|
frequently came out of the blue; armed with a diskette full�
|
|
of code, they attempted to set up a FidoNet node.
|
|
|
|
Actually, I don't understand how anyone does it. The�
|
|
information needed is not recorded in any place that a non�
|
|
sysop could find. On top of that, most of it is now totally�
|
|
wrong! If you follow the original instructions, it said�
|
|
"call Fido #1 ..." if you found a real antique, or "call�
|
|
Fido #51 ..." if it is more current. Of course now it tells�
|
|
you to find your region manager. "Region manager???" Well, a�
|
|
list of region managers was published in FidoNews, but�
|
|
unless you read FidoNews, how does anyone ever find out?�
|
|
I'll probably never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS ... the original reason for all the changes�
|
|
was to DECENTRALIZE FidoNet. It just wasn't possible for Ken�
|
|
Kaplan to keep accurate, up to date information on every�
|
|
Fido in the US and Europe. The decentralization has been�
|
|
more or less a total success. The number of problem�
|
|
sintroduced were negligable compared to the problems solved,�
|
|
and even most new problems are by this time solved.
|
|
|
|
It is interesting to note that with the hundreds of�
|
|
systems there are today, the national FidoNet hour is less�
|
|
crowded than it was when there were only 50 nodes.
|
|
|
|
Please, keep in mind that no one has done anything�
|
|
like this before, we are all winging it, and learning�
|
|
(hopefully) as we go. Please be patient with problems, none�
|
|
of us is paid to do this, and it is more and more work as�
|
|
time goes on. Somehow it seems to all get done ...
|
|
|
|
HOW TO GET A NODE NUMBER AND ALL THAT
|
|
|
|
20 August 1985
|
|
|
|
This is by necessity a very general idea of how it's�
|
|
done, and you were warned earlier that this may be obsolete�
|
|
this very minute; with that, here's the "current" process�
|
|
for starting up a new FidoNet node.
|
|
|
|
You can of course skip all or part o6 this if you've�
|
|
done this before; if you haven't, well, be prepared for a�
|
|
lot of searching and asking questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, you need to have your Fido BBS system�
|
|
running first. It's probably best that you play with id for�
|
|
a while, and get some experience with how it all works, and�
|
|
whether you have the patience to run a BBS. It can get�
|
|
exasperating, and you will never find time to use the�
|
|
computer ever again.
|
|
|
|
Obtain the most recent copy of the nodelist�
|
|
possible; thi may take some searching. If you get totally�
|
|
lost, you can always contact Fido 125/1 or Fido 100/51;�
|
|
though these are very busy systems, they both usually have�
|
|
the very latest of anything, and can direct you to the right�
|
|
place.
|
|
|
|
The big problem here is to find out if oyu are in a�
|
|
net or not, and if not, then who your region manager is. If�
|
|
you are in a lrge city (Los Angeles, Cincinnati, etc) then�
|
|
there is probably a net in your area. Look through the node�
|
|
list (use the N)odebook command in Fido, or a text editor)�
|
|
for the right area code or city.
|
|
|
|
If there is no net in your area, then you are part�
|
|
of a region. This is a little harder, because regions are�
|
|
large, and sometomes cover many states. Look at all the�
|
|
regions in the node list, you should find a region that fits�
|
|
you.
|
|
|
|
Once you find this, you have to contact the net or�
|
|
region manager to get your node number. Exactly how this is�
|
|
done depends on who the manager is, and how sticky they are�
|
|
fir details. A near universal requirement is that you send�
|
|
your request via FidoNet, not by manully; this isn't done to�
|
|
make you life difficult, but to ensure that your system is�
|
|
really working right. IF you manage to get a FidoNet message�
|
|
to the manager, its usually safe to assume that you're�
|
|
system is working OK. If you get a reply in return, then you�
|
|
know both directions work.
|
|
|
|
It is usually each sysops' responsibility to go get�
|
|
the latest nodelist and newsletters; they are not�
|
|
distributed to all systems because of the expense. (Though,�
|
|
I'm trying to get them distributed to more places than they�
|
|
are now, it's sometimes very difficult to get a copy of the�
|
|
nodelist!)
|
|
|
|
Again, read the FidoNew newsletter regularly; it is�
|
|
about the only way to stay in contact with the rest of the�
|
|
net. Programs, problems, services, bugs and interesting�
|
|
announcements can always be found there. FidoNews articles�
|
|
don't come out of thin air; send in anythnig you think might�
|
|
be of interest. They don't have to be lifetime masterpieces,�
|
|
or even well written.
|
|
|
|
Please remember the entire network is made of the�
|
|
sysops; there is no central location from which good things�
|
|
come, the net consists entirely of the sysops and their�
|
|
contributions. If you don't do it, chances are no one else�
|
|
will!
|
|
|
|
Tom Jennings
|
|
20 Aug 85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Kaplan Fido 100/51 314/432-4129
|
|
Tom Jennings Fido 125/1 415/864-1418
|
|
Ben Baker Fido 100/10 314/234-1462
|
|
|