🚀 go-pugleaf

randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> > It causes UUCP systems using slow modems on noisy lines to waste ...
>            ^ broken

No, not broken.  *All* UUCP systems on bad lines will handle large postings
less well than they handle small ones.

Consider a 2400 baud UUCP site (there are plenty around still) collecting a
5MB article.  It has to keep its link working for over 4 hours.  If the line
fails for some reason, it has to dial in again and start transferring the
article again from the beginning.

Therefore, if the line is sufficiently poor that the mean time between
failures is less than four hours, the UUCP system will take an indefinite
amount of time to transfer the article.

On the other hand, if the article is split up into 80 64K chunks, the UUCP
system might (say) fail on chunk #50, dial in again, and not have to transfer
the first 49 chunks again.

You could devise some system which automatically split up big articles and
put them together at the far end, but it wouldn't be UUCP.

> If one limited the world to the lowest common denominator of broken tools,
> we would still be using stone wheels.

If you're saying that everyone using UUCP should just fuck off and disconnect
from the net, might I ask who the hell you think you are?


mathew
-- 
"I don't believe that where German soldiers have been they can't go again."
 -- Volker Ru"he, German Defence Minister