Text 252, 163 rader
Skriven 2005-05-02 14:46:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 230 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Changing FTS-0001.
==========================
Hello mark,

 MvdV>> It will be difficult to get the same stability as you have now. I
 MvdV>> had the same decision to make when I added IP capability. My POTS
 MvdV>> only system has been running on a DOS machine until Sept 2003.
 MvdV>> There was no way that I could make it take care of IP too, DOS is
 MvdV>> ony stable in a single task environment, I never could get a
 MvdV>> /stable/ multitasker for DOS.

 > DESQview worked great for me... however, i never attempted to
 > network a DV machine... networked machines are a requirement
 > in my current setup...

There you have it. It is the same here. I consider the network essential.
Somewhere around 1995 I switched from MS DOS to Novell DOS. Main reason was
that Novell DOS came with Novel Personal Netware. I figured that since I payed
for it anyway, I might as well dump Microsoft. The network part of Novell is
impeccable, but the DOS part does not do what it claims: to be totally
compatible with MS DOS. And the multitaskes that comes with it, just doesn't
work with InterMail...

 MvdV>> Chinese script in FidoNet?

 > the russians do along with several other nationalities that
 > use their native character sets...

The Cyrillic character set can fit into 8 bits. Chinese? I don't think so.

 MvdV>> I have never heard of a Chinese codepage. Unlike the Japanese
 MvdV>> Kanyi set, the Chinese alphabet has thousands of characters. How
 MvdV>> can they ever get that into an 8 bit character set?

 > that's why there's been a push for unicode since many years
 > back... long before you or i were selected to the FTSC...

Of course, the need for character sets larger than what can be fitted into 8
bits is older than FidoNet. ANd yes, I can understand those who need it most
doing most of the pushing,

 MvdV>> You know Carol, that is one of the reasons I am sceptical when
 MvdV>> claims are made about Fidonet nodes in China. FidoNet is based on
 MvdV>> 8 (actually just 7) bit character text only.

 > that was in the beginning... the problem has been human
 > doorstops getting in the way for much much far too long...

No, not just that. In the beginning there were legitimite technical problems
associated with the use of characters with bit 8 set. That is why moderators
were very reluctant in allowing them.

 MvdV>> There is no way that one can decently fit Chinese in such a
 MvdV>> scheme.

 > what's wrong with unicode??

Nothing except that it does not do well on hardware that only supports 8 bit
character sets.

 MvdV>> You need a graphic environment or at least a 16 bit
 MvdV>> character set.

 > so if they use a GUI (as many do for their BIG5 and such) let
 > them... those stuck in 7 and 8 bit mode will have to suffer or
 > "grow up" and get a GUI that supports their mode of operations
 > if they want to participate with those using BIG5 or such...

You know I do not support that POV. Forcing people to "grow up" is a sure way
to lose them.

 MvdV>> So if there is Fidonet in China, they will have to make do with
 MvdV>> an ugly transliteration or a VERY limited representation of
 MvdV>> their character set. Or they will have to use another language.
 MvdV>> I don't think that will be satisfactory for the average user.

 > it has been that kind of doorsto mentality that has fubar'd
 > many things...

What "doorstop mentality"? I am merely stating an obvious fact.

 > it is one of the reasons why fidonet is in the
 > shambles it is in today...

I disagree. FidoNet isn't any more in shambles than it was 10 years ago. It is
just a lot smaller. The users have left for greener pastures. new things come
and older things fade out. It is called evolution.

 MvdV>> A medium that does not allow decent comunication in one's own
 MvdV>> laguage won'tattrackt many users and those users certainly won't
 MvdV>> stay if an alternative becomes available.

 > that's a very huge bit of truth... and it points directly to
 > the stick-in-the-mud doorstop problems that have plagued
 > fidonet for 15+ years...

Nonsense. The fact that it was not possible to decently communicate in Chinese
has nothing to do with FidoNet as such. It has everything to do with that fact
that until Windows came along the operating systems did not support it. And
when the OS's finally started to support it, it was too late for Fidonet. The
users had already moved to the next technology.

 >> I am in favor of allowing any codepage to be used as long as the
 >> effect is cosmetic on those who do not share the same one. I am
 >> adverse to mandating any one if it costs us nodes.

 MvdV>> So am I. In fact I am adverse to ANY change that is not downward
 MvdV>> compatible. That is why I have problems with numbers in the phone
 MvdV>> numbers field that aren't phone numbers. That is why I have
 MvdV>> problems with ION hosts.

 > then you are a doorstop stick-in-the-mud...

That is not how I see it. I see it as not going along with the lemmings that
want to move in what they perceive as forward without regard of the cliff.

As I see it, allowing anything other than a dialable phone number or
"-Unpublished-" is a step in the wrong direction.

 > not everything is or can be "downward" [sic: should be backward]
 > compatible...

This can.

 MvdV>> But... there is still no way that I can use German and Cyrillic
 MvdV>> in the same text. If I use codepage 866, I have to forgo of the
 MvdV>> umlauts. And vice versa.

 > then you are one of us who would need to upgrade to new
 > software rather than to stick with the old world ways...

That's no use if not everyone else does it too.

 MvdV>> The only way around this is to allow 16 bit characters. Or
 MvdV>> preferebly a mixed set, such as UTF8. UTF8 is downward
 MvdV>> compatible...

 MvdV>> But I doubt if I will see the day that all of FidoNet goes
 MvdV>> UTF8...

 > if everyone keeps on fighting about everything effin' thing,
 > that's very true... it is that fighting why many have become
 > silent and why others have left without a word... keep on
 > fighting, ok? it is just another nail in the coffin...

It has nothing to do with fighting.

It is a simple fact of life that there is a limit to the extent one can upgrade
old technology. You can retrofit a Dakota with turbo prop engines and extent
its lifetime by another 20 or 30 years. But there comes a time when the cost of
upgrading exceeds the cost of starting from fresh.

FidoNet is old technology. It is based on concepts born 25 years ago. If we had
any sense we would dump it and move on to the new technology that is sitting in
our lap.

But we like it and so we hang on to it like horse lovers hang on to their
horses. But if they have any sense they know that the horse as a means of
transport can never compete with the motor vehicle any more.


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.fidosoft.de (2:280/5555)