Hello Andrew,

On Sat Dec 19 2020 01:25:16, Andrew Leary wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 NB>> It's seriously sad as fuck around here. I've taken long hiatuses
 NB>> from posting just because I knew arguments would ensue I didn't
 NB>> give a shit to be involved with. I'm a big fan of currently
 NB>> developed software, and have multiple systems (some not on
 NB>> Fidonet) running here to test software and enjoy the fact that my
 NB>> hobby when I was 15 years old (am now going to be 40 next month -
 NB>> and I don't care to hear how long any of you have been here) is
 NB>> still progressing (albeit at an alarmingly slow pace, pretty much
 NB>> due to the FTSC and or a select few people that apparantly want
 NB>> Fidonet to just die already).

 AL> So you are advocating changing things without regard for maintaining
 AL> compatibility with existing software?

No. Compatibility with existing software is great. However, when can one take
into account that said existing software is just about extinct and move on
without it?

Example: Most newer software has at one time or another implemented workarounds
and other hacks in order to keep IREX useable when it's obviously broken. It
hasn't been (nor will it be) updated in decades. If something like that is
holding up advancement, why not try to persuade the possible handful of people
still using it to use something else and carry on with moving forward?

There are plenty others that fall into that category as well. When can said
software be considered defunct?

 AL> I personally welcome the discussion that Maurice started, and Alexey
 AL> has now joined in on.  In fact, I am giving serious consideration to
 AL> implementing some form of this in MBSE.

That's great! However it seems we just have to add/support more kludges because
30+ year old software will never support it. That's the annoying part.

Regards,
Nick

... "Take my advice, I don't use it anyway."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20181215