Text 2244, 165 rader
Skriven 2004-08-01 17:26:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 2232 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
Ärende: http compatability flag
===============================
 >  >>  >> larger audience potential?
                  ^^^^^^^^
 >  >>  MvdV> How?

 > >> by allowing those who can't join or otherwise participate
 > >> via existing methods to have a method by which they can...
 > >> i'm surprised you didn't see this...

 >  MvdV> To be part of the audience,

 > we're NOT talking about the /audience/...

Then what is that word at the top of this message doing there? As ai read it it
says "audience".

 > we're talking about membership in the network...

if that is what you want to talk about instead of "audiance" you should have
said so. You came upo with the word "audience", not me.

 > to be a member you have to have an entry in the nodelist...

Yes. So?

 > to have that, you have to be able to transfer FTN mail by at least
 > one of several means...

And so our potential FidoNet member has a choice of 20 protocols. or maybe not.
He has to make contact with his NC. So maybe his choice is limitede to three.
Or one.

How does that make it any easier than when there were just one protocol to
choose from becuase everyone else uses that protocol?

And of course obtaining membership is just one thing. our new member will want
to /do/ something with his new toy. But then he finds that the protocol he
selected is not compatible with the ones that are supported by that other node
where he cab get that special echomail area. So he has to install another
protocol. How does that make life easier?

 > >> >> would that not allow for others to rejoin the network and
 > >> >> enable it to grow?

 > >>  MvdV> I doubt it. As I see it, it will just saddle the
 > >>  MvdV> potential newcomer with the additional problem of
 > >>  MvdV> choosing protocols.

 > >> no different than all the protocols already in use on the
 > >> internet...
 >
 >  MvdV> The InterNet users makes no such choices. he does not have
 >  MvdV> to carefully search for an ISP that supports the protocols
 >  MvdV> of his choice. They ALL support POP3 and SMTP.
 >
 > we're not talking about /USERS/... we're talking about
 > members and those who make things work... those are the
 > systems that are the main points of connection and the
 > developers that create the tools with which to use the
 > capabilities provided...

Bla, bla bla blah. Your are avoiding the issue. How does having more protocols
to choose from make life easier for the potential node?

 > >>  MvdV> Have a look at the video renting bussiness. In the
 > >>  MvdV> beginning there  were three competing standards: VHS,
 > >>  MvdV> Betamax and V2000, So video shops had to store fims
 > >>  MvdV> in three standards. Lots of[...]

 > >> TTBONK, i can't say that i've ever been aware of video
 > >> rental shops that far back... beta was already dead and
 > >> gone by the time i ever saw a video rental place...

 >  MvdV> And why do you think that is?

 > because it wasn't available... because it wasn't profitable...

Exactly. It is not profitable, or at least less profitable to have to sustain
more competing but incompatible systems than just having one.

So all but one petered out.

 > because no one asked for it...

And of course after that happened, the demand for those other systems also
dropped to zero.

 >  MvdV> Why do you think to video bussiness threw out standards
 >  MvdV> execpt one?

 > that would depend on what you are calling a "video
 > business"... is that one who makes the products or one who
 > rents or sells the products?

All of them of course. They are all interlinked.

 >  MvdV> The answer should be staring you in the face: maintaining
 >  MvdV> incompatible competing standards to do the same thing is
 >  MvdV> a waste of effort and resources.

 > sorry, if one can make a couple of million dollars on a
 > failing standard, it doesn't seem like a waste of effort or
 > resources...

Djeez, are you really that dense? Take off your blinders man. Where is betamax?
It is gone! And why? See above.

 > >>  MvdV> needless overhead for them and the customer could find that
 > >>  MvdV> the only copy of a movie he wanted was the wrong standard. It
 > >>  MvdV> was great relief for everyone whem betamx and V2000 petered
 > >>  MvdV> out and VHS became the only remaining standard.

 >  >> how about another example, please?

 >  MvdV> Why do you think it is difficuolt to find a good example? The
 >  MvdV> answer should again be staring you in the face: because having
 >  MvdV> incompatible competing standards is a waste of resources. So
 >  MvdV> such a condition usually does not last very long. You will
 >  MvdV> only find that situation in during the introduction of a new
 >  MvdV> technology.

 >  MvdV> How about the metric and Withworth nuts and bolts? Or are you
 >  MvdV> going to tell me that Withworth has finally faded out in the
 >  MvdV> US as well?

 > i've never heard of them so i can't comment on them...

Then why not listen to those that were faced with the frustration of having the
wrong spanner to tighten that bolt?

Withworth is (one of) the standards for thread that came from the UK. On the
continent it was always metric. Withworth has diameters and pitch in inches.
Metric in millimeters. Same for the tools that you need. They serve the same
purpose and the one has no significant advantage over the other, but they are
incompatible and you need different tools.

How frustrating to not be able to undo that bolt on your motorbike because you
could not afford a two full sets of spanners and the spanner you have is the
wrong type...

Luckily that is history now. At least in Europe. It is all metric now. But I
still remember the hassle. It is a pity you didn't or you would perhaps
understand what I mean.

 > >> maybe one that fits with today's technology? the internet has
 > >> how many different protocols travelling over it at any given second??
 >
 >  MvdV> Those protocols do different things. There are very few
 >  MvdV> incompatible competing protocols to do the same thing. Email
 >  MvdV> and news uses POP3 and SMTP. Browsers use HTTP. or file
 >  MvdV> transers one uses FTP.

 > you're incorrect, again... there are numerous competing
 > peer-to-peer network protocols out there...

They don't do the same thing..

 > there are also several one-to-one chat protocols out there...

Much to the frustration of the users. yes, thes chat programmes are stil in th
early phase. What will happen is predictable: all but one will disappear.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx
 * Origin: 7B 03 14 B1  FF 53 35 19  B8 01 20 FA  B0 08 DC F6  (2:280/5555)