Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  Mobile Email with UUCP
Subject:   UUCP in 2003... err... 2004
Date:   2004-01-09 16:12:12
From:   Trackback from http://george.hotelling.net/90percent/geekery/uucp_in_2003_err_2004.php anonymous2
I found the depraved rantings of a psychotic on ONLamp strangely compelling. I mean, can this insanity be real? Can UUCP be the solution for mobile email? What's next, Gopher based RSS readers? I love retro protocols, but finding a...
Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

  • UUCP in 2003... err... 2004
    2004-01-12 15:03:07  anonymous2 [View]

    What's wrong with old protocols ?
    They have been tested for many years :)
    IMHO most users/admins decided that they must use SMTP/POP anyway so one protocol more is a needles complication for them.
    BTW Gopher seems to be a good protocol for mobile phone display and "keyboards".
  • UUCP in 2003... err... 2004
    2004-01-09 16:44:10  jafo [View]

    Well, if it makes you feel better you could tunnel the UUCP sessions over XMLRPC. :-)

    For some people, the jury is still out as far as my psychoses, but the fact remains that I've had super stable e-mail for a solid 4 years, no matter if I'm at home, the coffee shop, or at the airport. It just works.

    Sean
    • UUCP in 2003... err... 2004
      2004-02-14 17:23:02  coolestuk [View]

      Hey Sean... thanks for an interesting article. I'm glad to see you are enjoying the benefits of using a well-worn protocol in new ways. I think the people who can't see the wood for the trees are the ones who are psychotic.I'm going to look for new ways in which I can use UUCP also.

      I wish there were more articles about exploiting the power of unix. My suspicion is that there is more that's been forgotten about the power of unix than is currently known.

      The power of unix is just awesome. I've just been blown away today by running a process in an open source database - exactly the same database, running exactly the same stored procedure is 10x faster on Linux than on W2K (and the Linux box has about 60% of the RAM and a slower processor...) I expected it to be equal or maybe slower than on the W2K box (and my db of choice is not even PostgreSQL, so it isn't like it is some cobbled-together Win32 version).