WD> because he wants to push an agenda of modem-speeds that no- WD> one has ever heard about while at the same time not understanding makenl WD> is limited to the number of modem-speeds it can process
You never told met that ! I only got back that I had a rediculous proposal. Refusing things without explaining is not a fair discussion. And second as Bjorn explains, that limit can be overuled for years.
33600 is a useless baudrate, as the serial port can not handle that speed. And at the oder side 57600 and 115200 are interesting as a DTE from/to DCE speeds, that counts because of OnLine Data Compression between the modems, I.e: _ _ BBS ===|_|--- Pots --- Exchange --- VoIP --- |_|=== Node/Point/User 57600 28800 + V42 Bis 28800 115200 DTE DCE DCE DTE
What speed should be used in de Nodelist? Yes 57600, because that's the max throughput with OnLine Data Compression. So the caller has to set his speeds the same or higher. That's the function of mentioning the speeds besides the modem protocols.
10 years ago I got more 14400 links than 28800 with VoIP nodes, but last year I got very good results at 28800 mostly. So it's better now.
WD> and so his request basically is rubbish,
It was the technically correct one of all possible modem and DTE-speeds.
Second point is you could do a better redundancy check with errflgs as I proofed with my proposal. That will shorten much bytes in every daily list. Not only for transmission, but also storage. The less technical educated the NC/RC's are, the more mistakes are left in many segments, the more you have to correct, or learn the RC's.
WD> Michiel about that one user-flag which caused the region he ran to WD> blow-up
Nodes wich a MOB flag are not OnLine during ZMH, so donot qualify to be a fully fledged FidoNet node.
WD> One can react stating "But as a Pvt it would have been the same thing". WD> Technically in the eyes of a technician "yes",
And that's the only point *C's should handle by, so without politics.
WD> In the FTSC-conference Michiel has been fulminating about the MOB WD> 'user-flag'. First of all I don't see why the FTSC would bother itself WD> to even look at user-flags ... they're just that ... 'user'-flags. He WD> became melo-dramatic and went balastic over this because he cannot WD> connect to 2:292/865 ...
And he is right in that. Every node should be contactable at ZMH, for CrashNetMail at least.
WD> not that there ever would be a need for him to connect there.
It does not matter if there is a need, that can allways arise at some moment. And much more other nodes can not contact him either. A MOB node is just like a Point, nothing more.
WD> But when running this zone beating everybody over the head with a set of WD> standards, some probably having been pushed-through on the wings of a WD> personal agenda by whomever, we would lose 7 or perhaps 8 regions WD> immediately. So how militaristic do we need to be about the standards WD> ... just think about this, I think there's only one person harping on WD> about this ... everybody else is just happy communicating.
You think talking about poop, peeing and masturbating is a happy language? I see it as a lack of other serious talking, so falling down to that stupid level. If you cannot do better, say nothing. The period FidoNet will survive will be shorter by downing the intelectual level of talks that is happening more and more. And you are taking part in that low level as well. So when you want to earn more respect, leave that silly young boy talk away. But I know you and and nothing will change, so I have to skip low level talks with the next key.
Henri.
--- * Origin: Connectivity is the Future; UniCorn BBS 31 26 4425506 (2:280/1208)
