MSGID: 2:221/1.58@fidonet ec02cc07
REPLY: 1:106/127 fb86f7ab
PID: OpenXP/5.0.48 (Win32)
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: -0500
Hello Charles!

** On Friday 01.01.21 - 18:19, Charles Pierson wrote to August Abolins:

 CP> ..I'm currently carrying around 200 message areas I believe,
 CP> and unfortunately, this phone doesn't let applications run
 CP> off of the SD card, so it limits my available space.

Offloading to an SD card would be sweet.

On my Blackberry, I can establish which storage device any app  
uses.  It's in the overall Settings section of the phone.  I  
don't really need the extra storage that an SD card offers, but  
decided to configure the camera to stash the pics onto the SD  
card. The document and music apps can be adjusted too.


 AA>> CS> BTW, saw some silly dust ups about the telegram bit..

 CP> I think a big part of the dust up was a lack of
 CP> communication. wh8ch is somewhat humourous considering this
 CP> is a communucation medium.

LOL. :)


 CP> But there has always been complaints about changes to how
 CP> and where Fidonet traffic is.

I'm ok with that. Some initial complaints take the form of  
concern which are a form of inquiry.  But to kick up a dust storm  
with no suggestion that there are options for educational  
discussion is sad.


 CP> "Privacy" concerns just seem to loom larger these days than
 CP> in the past.

There is no provision in Fido technology for privacy.  Everything  
is in the clear. The nature of echomail is open and public  
discussion.  The privacy in netmail is under the discretion of  
the sysop of the system it passes through - whether it be via  
email using Juno, a VPS hosted BBS somewhere or whatever.

But it may be true that a few more people are tuned to privacy  
concerns about any communications medium these days.

I'd say to those persons if you expect privacy and "control" of  
your messages, then don't participate in Fidonet.  :(

But I like the idea of the option of encrypted packets, and  
systems carrying the "ENC" flag.  That, at least is a good
indication that things don't necessarily have to remain blatantly  
in-the-clear if FTN systems are willing to cooperate.


 AA>> The experiment lost WIFI, X-FILES, NZ_FIDONET, WHAT'S_HOT!
 AA>> & RETAIL_HORROR ..all good candidates for the independent
 AA>> chat style of messaging.

 CP> Again, I still say it was a communication problem. I
 CP> remember Carol mentioning at least that the link was coming.
 CP> That's more than those echos you mention above did.

True. I got the moderator approvals, but the moderators did not  
say "wait until we make an announcement". A day or two later, I  
forwarded the info to Stas, and then a day or two later, Stas  
worked on getting feeds. The total time for all that took about a  
week for the 1st echo go live. I think it was nearly 2 weeks  
before one of the later echos went live.  If a moderator was  
concerned about communication there was plenty of time to achieve  
that in their own echo.  ;)   But none of the mods spoke up or  
raised concerns at the time.


 CP> Like I was trying to say before during that hooplah, going
 CP> forward, even after getting moderators permission, take a
 CP> little time explaining how it works in the echo before going
 CP> live.

But then, do you expect that every time a sysop changes to host  
their BBS on a new VPS and other "obviously commericial" servers?  
;)

The Telegram concept simply blew some people's minds when they  
made assumptions. Misconceptions followed.


 CP> Yes, there are going to be some users and even sysops
 CP> opposed to the idea, but they are free to no longer
 CP> participate in the echo if it bothers them that much.

Absolutely.  Freedom is wonderful.

I am enjoying the Fidonews postings from 30 year ago to  
comp.org.fidonet.  Man.. users and sysops really seemed to care  
about the progress of the hobby back then. In one of the latest  
issues was a concern to be expected to carry a specific echo and  
even the carry the Fidonews newsletter itself.
--
  ../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.48
 * Origin: Mobile? ASIAN_LINK https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6rwskq (2:221/1.58)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 18/200 57/0 90/1 105/81 114/705 120/340 123/120 131
SEEN-BY: 153/250 220/70 226/17 30 227/114 229/101 424 426 452 664
SEEN-BY: 229/1016 1017 240/5832 249/206 317 400 250/5 8 267/800 280/464
SEEN-BY: 298/25 305/3 317/3 322/757 340/1000 342/200 633/280 712/848
SEEN-BY: 770/0 1 100 330 340 772/0 1 210 220 230
PATH: 221/1 280/464 770/1 317/3 229/426