Hi Felipe,

 SH>>> The future of Fidonet is not in POTS nodes but in IP nodes and

 MV>> The future of communication is in the InterNet

 FTD> In _an_ internet, yes.

Yes, it need not be the InterNet as we know it now.

 MV>> but if that is also the future of FidoNet, I am not so sure about.

 FTD> Nor am I.

I like to remind of the analogy of the horse. Horses have no place anymore
as a means of transportation. They are still used for recreation, but as a
means of transport they have been replaced by motorized vehicles. And of
course motorized behicles are very well suited to transport horses too. But
using a trailer to
transport horses is not goinfg to save the horse as a means of transport.
Sure, it is an excellent way to get a horse from A to B. And from B to C
one can use the horse if there is no raod. But when everyine has a car and
there are raods everywhere, why does one continue to drag the horse around
in a trailer? Why not use the car by itself instead?

When everyoine has a permanent connection to the InterNet, why still use
the extra layer of FTN software? Why not use what is already there? Why not
use e-mail instead if netmail. Why not use mailing lists or newsgroups
instead of echomail?

 MV>> We may one day dearly regret having put all our eggs in
 MV>> thy basket of the InterNet.

 FTD> Curious that while debating this same point a couple of
 FTD> years ago in one of our regional echoes I used that very
 FTD> same sentence  :)

Like minds think alike. ;-)

 MV>> A medium that puts much more control in the hands of others than
 MV>> was the case with POTS.

 FTD> Exactly, more than. It is a question of degrees and not a
 FTD> binary one.

Yep. I very much doubt intelligence agencies are monitoring this. The could
of course, but why should they?

 MV>> But, whatever the fuyture brings, I believe giving up downward
 MV>> compatibility will be the death of FidoNet.

 SH> Yes, I believe that too.  Adding to the network is good,
 SH> substituting, on the other hand, is simply risky business.

Risky indeed.

 MV>> And presently there is a movement to do away with it.

 FTD> If that is true, I see it as a blind movement.

I see that there is a faction, mostly present in Z1, that says Fido  must
move forward or die. In consequence, they embrace /any/ proposal that will
indeed change things without giving it due consideration.

I believe this to be the wrong thing to do. Change for the sakje of change
will not save FidoNet. On the contrary, it may very well kill it.

 MV>> I shall continue to oppose that as long as a substantial part of
 MV>> Fidonet depends on old technology.

 FTD> Agreed. And who says that Fido cannot grow except through Inet?

I believe we should give up the idea that FidoNet can still grow. That is
an illusion. The majority of the users are gone because they have found
what they perceive to be greener pastures. They are not coming back. Just
as the farmers that have a tractor aren't going back to the horse.

I believe we have to make ro with what we got.

 FTD> It may be so for people who it's been years and even
 FTD> more than a decade that have been using POTS. They may
 FTD> consider it obsolete.

POTS isn't obsolete. I use it daily. ;-)

 FTD> If it were I could not use it, you could not read me and Fido
 FTD> would not have such a potential huge base of possible users.

Quit so. For a large fraction of FidoNet users POTS is still the only way.
And for others it is not the only way, but still the most economic way.

 FTD> Why is it that people turn to radio when they really want
 FTD> to know the news about something?  Do they not have TV?

I have TV. More than one in fact. I also have a radio. Also more than one.
But there is a news bulletin on the radio every hour. There is news on TV
during day time, but not as frequent. Radio is more up to date. Besides
that radio can be listened to when doing something else. Like doing the
dishes or driving a car.

Your point is a good one. More isn't always better suited for the purpose.
Take the picturephone. Technically it is feasible. So why isn't it here?
Simple, just voice is enough for most purposes and there are plenty of
circumstnces where poeple would rather not show their face.

 PTD> Yes, they do, but they trust radio and distrust TV for info
 PTD> on serious things. Inet, while being the future, has still to
 PTD> earn that respect.

Yep.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k