Hi Michiel,

On 2023-08-21 14:45:17, you wrote to me:

 WV>> At the time the choice was made, because rar compressed better. And
 WV>> because it still works there is no reason to change this.

 MvdV> It is no secret that I am not a member of the "more is better" club. In the
 MvdV> POTS age with high cost of data transport "compressed better" was a valid
 MvdV> argument. Although even then in the end of the compression evolution the
 MvdV> added value was so small that it didn't really matter anymore. Is another
 MvdV> one percent of compression efficiency realy worth it.

It was way more then 1%...

 MvdV>>> How many in Amiganet still actually use an Amiga?

 WV>> Enough...

 MvdV> Enough to lkep LAH alive?

Yes.

 MvdV>>> The problem with keeping all these antiquaria, is that you also
 MvdV>>> have to support it. This will become increasingly difficult
 MvdV>>> when the knowledge evaporates...

 WV>> This is true for all of Fidonet technology. Keeping this old
 WV>> techniques working is partly what makes it interesting...

 MvdV> True but at some point one has to make choices that every museum has to
 MvdV> make. What do we keep and what do we drop? I see little value in keeping
 MvdV> more then one compression method alive for Fidonet. Yes, it is interesting
 MvdV> to keep Fidonet alive. But not ALL of the technology that was ever used.
 MvdV> Drop some and focus on keeping the rest alive.

Well, in this case it doesn't matter what you think. It's what the AmigaNet users want... ;-)

And in a museum available "real" space is probably a lot more expensive then available "virtual" space in AmigaNet, which is kind of limitless...


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.2.0.0