Subj : Re: Qwk Vs Ftn
To   : Rob Swindell
From : Tom Moore
Date : Wed Dec 04 2024 15:00:18

-=> Rob Swindell wrote to Tom Moore <=-

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

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

True, we're not as big as a main stream social network where we have hundreds
of thousands of users and any number of users sharing / commenting  on posts.
Our scaling requirements aren't all that high.


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

This is true as long as each system has a unique username things work just
fine.
In today's environment it is probably hard to fill the required roles of some
FTN's in an independant way where NC's, RC's and other levels in the structure
are different people.
At this point there are probably multiple roles being handled by a single
individual because our population is so small at this point.

Tom


.... What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind! - Homer S.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
 * Origin: Cw Shack Bbs - kf4yey.com (1:135/205)

.