Text 755, 82 rader
Skriven 2007-03-24 22:28:24 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
    Kommentar till text 750 av Maurice Kinal (1:140/13)
Ärende: Fidonet URL syntax
==========================
Hi Maurice,

 PK> Spot on Michael, I agree 100% with what you say, Fidonet is NOT now 
 PK> and never has been "the internet".

 MK> Please define "the internet".  I think Michael and now 
 MK> you might be mistaken exactly what the internet actually is.  

I think I have known (and used) the internet for 30+ years now.......;-) Yes,
in the context of the messages here its a term that is loosely used by many
people these days so my use of it above is based on that "looseness" (which to
some is probably not techically correct)...;-)


 PK> "the internet", that would destroy the "quality of life" that it 

 MK> Please explain how that could happen any moreso then a 
 MK> POTs connection could.  

Now that seems to me like a really strange question, comming from someone like
you, however just to make sure, I will restate what I consider is obvious. 

Fidonet is about the TRANSPORT of messages between BBS's, nothing more, nothing
less. The user interface for Fidonet is the BBS, and that BBS provides (to
Fidonet) the "filtering" and management part of the traffic. The BBS Sysop
determines who can and who can't access their message base, however please note
these are NOT Fidonet Message bases, they are the BBS message bases, and the
BBS just injects his message base traffic into Fidonet.  The BBS simply uses
the internet for the transport of the Fidonet traffic, instead of the PSTN of
the past.

By putting Fidonet message bases directly on the internet without the
management environment of a BBS to "control" the user, the quality of content
will become questionable (at best). 

If Fidonet wishes its content to continue to mean something, then it really
does need the BBS interface methodology to remain exactly as it is now, IE
restricted to authenticated and managed users.


 MK> If anything I'd argue that 
 MK> public internet access has actually improved 
 MK> connectivity, especially internationally or even 
 MK> locally where toll charges apply on a regular dialup 
 MK> line even within a defined Fidonet local area.

Of course the transport environment of the internet is a vast improvement over
PSTN transport for Fidonet, but note that this is NOT BBS traffic we are
talking about, its Fidonet traffic. The 2 entities are quite different, and
anyone who can't see that is not looking at the big picture.

For example, take a look at the Fidonet message areas that are direct copies of
internet Newsgroups. Then compare the quality of material with other Fidonet
only message areas. Yes, I read selected newsgroups, however at no time in the
past 15 years has the S/N ratio of the newsgroup content been anywhere near the
value of an equivalent Fidonet Message area.


 MK> I am sure you are mistaken in your criticism.

I doubt it, simply because you do not yet appear to have recognised the REAL
differences between Fidonet, BBS's and Newsgroups......;-)

 MK> However I still maintain that the 
 MK> current Fido standards require an overhaul but that has 
 MK> little or nothing to do with method of connection, and 
 MK> more to do with getting rid of questionable practices 
 MK> which have existed since before there was internetted 
 MK> Fido nodes etc.

I am actually interested in exactly WHAT people are trying to attain here, as
Fidonet is still just about transport, and nothing else. Presentation of
Fidonet traffic is NOT what Fidonet is about, that realm is fairly and squarely
in the hands of the BBS, and anyone trying to add presentation to Fidonet (with
a supposed goal of attaining a larger user base) is simply trying to push the
demise of Fidonet closer, whether they realise it or not.

Cheers.............pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)