>Another reason to choose UUCP over somthing more modern is
>that is would serve as a "rite of passage".
>
>In Fidonet, one could not become a node until one demonstrated
>the technical ability to send a message to the local HUB
>via a special fidonet node address. By return mail the HUB
>would grant your your permanent fidonet number. The HUBs would
>share amongst themselves the net numbers and node numbers thus
>makeing all nodes accessable from all other nodes.
The Fido analogy doesn't really fit in this case though since
the people on this list are of such diverse interests and
capabilities while most SYSOPs who might try to connect to FidoNet
should have all been considered to have a minimum amount of knowledge
on the setup of a BBS, which wouldn't have been unreasonable.
Setting up and getting the mailers and such working was hard enough
to ensure the average teenager running a board for the fun of it
didn't generally do it though. As for the UUCP connection,
retrieving or writing such software and getting it running with older
protocals on possibly unsupported hardware is considerably harder
still.
One thing I see as being a problem here would be choosing
something that would be usable across a rather broad choice of
systems, if it was to kept running on classic hardware. Not everyone
has Unix machines, such as the NeXT's, or machines capable of DECnet,
such as the PDP's and Pro series.
I'd be interested in such an alternate network though, as
like others, I miss the 'community' feeling of the earlier networks,
such as FidoNet, and of BBSes in general. I'm one of those though
that currently wouldn't be able to have a fulltime node, as I've yet
to switch from a dialup. BTW, I finally saw reference to a figure
of 35,000 systems worldwide being present on the FidoNet nodelist
near it's peak.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
Received on Sat Feb 09 2002 - 20:31:10 GMT