TID: FMail-W32 2.2.0.0   
   RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes   
   TZUTC: 0200   
   CHRS: CP850 2   
   MSGID: 2:280/5555 64e35f8e   
   REPLY: 2:280/464 64e323ff   
   Hello Wilfred,   
      
   On Monday August 21 2023 10:40, you wrote to me:   
      
    WV>>> I'm still using rar on two links.   
      
    MvdV>> Why? They do not support ZIP?   
      
    WV> Because I can. ;-)   
      
   Bad argument.   
      
    WV> At the time the choice was made, because rar compressed better. And   
    WV> because it still works there is no reason to change this.   
      
   It is no secret that I am not a member of the "more is better" club. In the   
   POTS age with high cost of data transport "compressed better" was a valid   
   argument. Although even then in the end of the compression evolution the added   
   value was so small that it didn't really matter anymore. Is another one   
   percent of compression efficiency realy worth it.   
      
   In the age of FOIP it has become irrelevant. In addition to thet the trend is   
   to not have mailer/tossers just process uncompressed packets and let binkd do   
   any compression.   
      
    WV>>> And lha is in use in AmigaNet, because it was and still is the   
    WV>>> default archiver for the Amiga.   
      
    MvdV>> How many in Amiganet still actually use an Amiga?   
      
    WV> Enough...   
      
   Enough to lkep LAH alive?   
      
    MvdV>> Hoe many of those do not also have a Fidonet node and support   
    MvdV>> ZIP? ZIP has become de de facto compression standard in   
    MvdV>> Fidonet.   
      
    MvdV>> The problem with keeping all these antiquaria, is that you also   
    MvdV>> have to support it. This will become increasingly difficult   
    MvdV>> when the knowledge evaporates...   
      
    WV> This is true for all of Fidonet technology. Keeping this old   
    WV> techniques working is partly what makes it interesting...   
      
   True but at some point one has to make choices that every museum has to make.   
   What do we keep and what do we drop? I see little value in keeping more then   
   one compression method alive for Fidonet. Yes, it is interesting to keep   
   Fidonet alive. But not ALL of the technology that was ever used. Drop some and   
   focus on keeping the rest alive.   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303   
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 10/0 1 15/0 90/1 102/401 103/1 705 105/81 106/201 123/131   
   SEEN-BY: 124/5016 129/305 153/757 7715 154/10 203/0 214/22 218/0 1   
   SEEN-BY: 218/215 700 720 840 860 880 900 920 221/0 6 226/30 227/114   
   SEEN-BY: 229/110 112 113 206 307 317 426 428 470 550 664 700 240/1120   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5832 266/512 280/464 5003 5006 5555 282/1038 291/111   
   SEEN-BY: 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 317/3 320/219 322/757 341/66 234   
   SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 5019/40   
   SEEN-BY: 5020/400 5075/35   
   PATH: 280/5555 464 103/705 218/700 229/426