INTL 1:1/130 1:229/2   
   REPLYADDR tracker1@roughneckbbs.com.remove-this   
   REPLYTO 1:229/2.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  3af808b3   
   REPLY: 1:129/215.0 268874a8   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   From: "Michael J. Ryan"    
   Newsgroups: alt.bbs.mystic   
   Subject: Re: Donations   
   Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 19:25:17 -0700   
   Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server   
   Message-ID:    
   Mime-Version: 1.0   
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed   
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   
   Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="11353"; posting-host="4yVxeg/   
     XZK+jAxsoPaH5Xw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";   
   User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101    
     Thunderbird/109.0   
   X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2   
   Content-Language: en-US   
   X-Received-Bytes: 1724   
   From: tracker1@roughneckbbs.com.remove-this   
      
   On 1/10/23 13:57, g00r00 wrote:   
    >   
    > But if I am not mistaken it can't hang with Intel in terms of the   
    > number of CPU cycles it takes to do things, which means it'll always   
    > be better to grab a non-RISC device over RISC for a BBS anyway.   
      
   In fairness, per thread/process, ARM doesn't either... As for a BBS,   
   even an RPi is more than enough, same for the RISC-V boards.  Depends on   
   how many simultaneous users you're likely to see and how much web   
   traffic you may need to fend off.   
      
   That said, by the time you add a case and storage, one of the mini intel   
   celeron/pentium boxes (N6005, J4125, N5100, etc) are a better value   
   option at similar cost.   
      
   --   
   Michael J. Ryan   
   tracker1(at)roughneckbbs.com   
   https://www.roughneckbbs.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
   SEEN-BY: 229/2 400 426 700 282/1038 317/3 340/400 770/330 900/102   
   PATH: 229/2 426