Re: Qwk Vs Ftn
  By: Tom Moore to All on Wed Dec 04 2024 11:06 am

 > It looks like my last message went to the wrong echo.
 > Hope this one goes to the correct one this time.
 >
 > What are some good points and bad points of Ftn's vs Qwk networking?
 > At this point from what I know Ftn allows for multiple levels of message
 > distribution.
 > When it comes to Qwk there seems to be a requirement for one system to be
 > the central feed point for all nodes.

QWKnet can have a distributed star topology too. DOVE-Net used to, back in the 90s, be a very big International web of QWKnet hubs (to save LD phone charges). But nowadays with everything on the Internet, there's not a big reason to have such a distributed network.

The bad points of FTNs are complexity of setup, requiring a lot of different software components and manual setup and maintenance. With QWK (and Synchronet, in particular), it can be all automated. I've been running DOVE-Net fully automated for decades. I don't have megabytes of mail waiting for nodes that vanish and I don't have to approve or assign nodes or anything like that. It's fully automated. And I can innovate (e.g. add voting/polling) without getting a lot of flack.
-- 
                                            digital man (rob)

Rush quote #24:
The more that things change, the more they stay the same
Norco, CA WX: 58.4øF, 68.0% humidity, 1 mph WSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux