Subj : Qwk Vs Ftn
To   : Tom Moore
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Wed Dec 04 2024 11:36 am

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

> It looks like my last message went to the wrong echo.
> Hope this one goes to the correct one this time.
>
> What are some good points and bad points of Ftn's vs Qwk networking?
> At this point from what I know Ftn allows for multiple levels of message
> distribution.
> When it comes to Qwk there seems to be a requirement for one system to be
> the central feed point for all nodes.

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

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

Rush quote #24:
The more that things change, the more they stay the same
Norco, CA WX: 58.4�F, 68.0% humidity, 1 mph WSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.