Text 11409, 102 rader
Skriven 2008-03-22 14:57:41 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
  Kommentar till text 11408 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38)
Ärende: Re: tumbling tumbleweed
===============================
MK> > The web didn't start taking off for the general public until after
MK> > the BBS had already started to die.
 
MK> Then what makes you think that Fido belongs on the web?  If a Fido node
MK> is a web address how does make it any different than any other web server
MK> out there that isn't a Fido node?
 
It doesn't "belong" on the web, but the web contributes to it.  Less tech-savy
people can use it that way, as well as people who aren't at machines that have
their BBS/Fido applications handy.  Not everyone has the luxury of being at the
same PC all the time.
 
You're frowning on a way for people to interact with Fidonet which can only
help to benefit it by allowing more people to use it.  That's what I don't
understand.  Nobody says you have to use it.
 
 
MK> > You don't always have your favorite editor handy.
 
MK> Always whereas a browser not so much.  Sometimes when building a new
MK> system I forget to put in a browser.  Same with email client(s).
 
But you're looking at it from your own property's perspective, on which you can
actually put those things.  I was talking about when a person is mobile, or at
work, on vacation, at a cyber cafe, staying at a relative's, etc. Those
machines aren't yours and don't have your tools or OS on them.  But that
doesn't mean you should have to be cut off from your work or mail or whatever
the case may be.  And thanks to a web browser, you don't have to be.
 
 
 
MK> > Another big advantage is the ability to use stuff like Java-based
MK> > VNC, telnet, and SSH clients.
 
MK> Don't need java for any of that.
 
You do if you want to use them via a web browser, which is sometimes all one
has on a machine, as I've been trying to point out.
 
 
MK> > Sometimes a web browser is the only tool you have.
 
MK> I seriously doubt that.  I'd sooner use cat, cp, etc.  To me a browser is
MK> only good for browsing and nothing else.
 
Again, you don't have those tools if it's not your machine. 
 
 
MK> > Java != Javascript.
 
MK> I know but I think you have it backwards not that it really matters.
MK> Anyhow it still has little to do with the original criticism about Fido
MK> messaging, or at least I hope that is still true, else all is lost.
 
Na not backwards at all, I've developed in both languages quite a bit. Anyone
here could confirm my descriptions of Java and Javascript, I'm sure.
 
 
MK> ago when I was still a Fido sysop.  Also have admistrated ftp sites
MK> before all that.  You must have missed the part of my last response where
MK> I said I had access to the internet before there was ISP's nevermind web
MK> sites on the internet.
 
I didn't miss that claim at all.  Nor did I miss the several "web is useless"
claims, which is why I would naturally assume you wouldn't be part of any web
forums.  You apparently do use it more than you'd probably care to admit!
 
 
MK> Now back to the original subject;  Why do Fido messages need html tags?
 
Messages don't.  Web browsers do.  You're expecting a web browser to inherently
know how to display proprietary content without any sort of markup as to how it
should look.  A Fidomail application is already hard-coded to open and display
the Fido messages appropriately, so it can't even be compared to a web browser,
because they're entirely different applications for entirely different tasks. 
It's like saying my shoe is better than my belt.
 
And actually, the web browser is multi-functional, where as a Fido mail reader
only does one task. One could even argue that it's a waste of development time
and disk space to make such applications these days if a single server
application can be written and run on a single machine to serve many users,
with a web browser being the only tool the user needed to read the mail (a tool
they'd already have).  You don't need to carry a bottle opener if you have a
swiss army knife in your pocket.  But I won't actually make that argument
because it's as silly as the original one. It's just to express my point. 
People should be free to access Fidonet however they want, even if that means
with a few tags mixed in.
 
For all that goes, one could just as easily store Fido mail in XML, and then it
could be opened either in a Linux terminal app just the same as it could be
displayed directly in a browser with a template.  Storing it in XML would be
the most universal method, regardless of the few extra bytes required for each
message for tags.  I'm kind of surprised nobody is doing so yet.
 
 
I just want to point out by the way that I'm not trying to insult you or force
my opinions on you or anything with what I've said so far in the echo. It's
just good old-fashioned debate of differences in opinions as far as I'm
concerned. Sometimes it's hard to portray the mood in text!

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)