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.

Tom


... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Cw Shack Bbs - kf4yey.com (1:135/205)

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: 58.4øF, 68.0% humidity, 1 mph WSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs --- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Rob Swindell wrote to Tom Moore <=-

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

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.

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.

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. --

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)