Yo! Bill:
Wednesday June 04 1997 21:35, Bill Tracy wrote to Moderator:
MM>> SCANNERS AND SCANNING. I am not confident that FidoNet and/or this
MM>> echo will last all that much longer, so alternative means of
MM>> everyone staying in touch relative to SCANNERS AND SCANNING is an
MM>> acceptable ON-TOPIC subject.
BT> Do U really think FidoNet will come to a close?
Think? Hoooo boy, no, I don't think it will close down as we know "closure".
I do think it will get smaller and smaller.....and access as we used to know
it will become unreliable and uncertain.
BT> I know that there has been a hugh drop off such as 1:324/111 and many
BT> others but still over or close to a 1,44 Meg compressed of BBS names
BT> and numbers means that there is a long way before the entire network
BT> will close down like BCSNet.
Sure, Fido is still LARGE by some definitions. But it is losing 50-150 nodes
a week. It may seem not significant, but in OUR case of the SCANRADIO echo,
you have to understand that not all Fido BBS's carry all echoes. Typically
in any given area, one or two BBS's will carry the SCANRADIO echo. Now if
they are the one or two that folds in a given week, then all of a sudden, the
echo isn't available to that region anymore. Sure, other boards can take up
the slack, but there is a point where there is no slack.
I don't see Fido as having any real urgent issues for another year; maybe
two. But participation on this and other echoes will gradually decline as
fewer and fewer boards carry the echo. This precedent has already been
established.
In the final analysis, FidoNet cannot compete with the Internet, and it has
already decided that it doesn't want to be a part of the Internet. So the
handwriting is on the wall........
All SCANRADIO participants are urged to explore Internet connectivity in the
coming year. The wealth of radio information "out there" is utterly
ofound.
Bill Cheek ~ bcheek@san.rr.com
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team ~ Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------
* Origin: Do you reckon a frog's ass is water-tight? (1:202/731)
|