= Сообщение: 2426 из 2735 =================================== RU.FTN.DEVELOP = От : Nil A 2:5015/46 04 Mar 24 22:48:48 Кому : All 04 Mar 24 22:48:48 Тема : Болтаем с ChatGPT о голдеде, базах, т.д. FGHI : area://RU.FTN.DEVELOP?msgid=2:5015/46+65e629f4 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== Ответ: area://RU.FTN.DEVELOP?msgid=2:5001/100.1+65e62f06 ============================================================================== * Originally in nino.046.local * Crossposted in ru.ftn.develop Hello, All!
Я до ChatGPT дорвался :-)
Do you familiar with the GoldEd Fidonet message editor?
> Yes, I'm familiar with GoldEd. GoldEd is a popular message editor used in > Fidonet, a worldwide bulletin board system network. GoldEd is known for > its user-friendly interface and functionality tailored specifically for > Fidonet's message and file transfer protocols. It's designed to > facilitate the creation, editing, and management of messages within the > Fidonet network, allowing users to participate in discussions and > exchange information across various Fidonet nodes. While it's not as > widely used today as it once was, GoldEd remains an important piece of > software in the history of online communication and bulletin board > systems.
[прошаренный и в фидошных делах]
Is it possible to adopt GoldEd to support unicode?
> GoldEd was primarily designed during a time when Unicode support wasn't > as prevalent or standardized as it is today. Unicode support allows for a > much wider range of characters and symbols beyond the traditional ASCII > character set.
> Adopting GoldEd to fully support Unicode would likely require substantial > modifications to its underlying codebase, including changes to how it > handles text encoding, input, rendering, and storage. This could involve > significant effort and expertise, especially considering the age and > complexity of the codebase.
> While it's theoretically possible to enhance GoldEd to support Unicode, > it would likely require a dedicated effort from developers familiar with > both the GoldEd codebase and modern Unicode standards. Given that GoldEd > is not as widely used today and there may be other messaging editors > available with built-in Unicode support, the incentive for such an > undertaking may be limited. However, if there is a strong community > demand or interest, it's always possible that enthusiasts could undertake > such a project.
[сопоставил дату появления голдеда с датой изобретения юникода, и решил, что переписать будет очень сложно?]
Do you know any Fidonet message editors that support Unicode?
> As of my last update in January 2022, most traditional Fidonet message > editors, including GoldEd, were primarily designed to handle ASCII text > and didn't have built-in support for Unicode characters. However, some > modern Fidonet software projects may have integrated Unicode support or > have been developed with Unicode compatibility in mind.
> One such example is BinkIT, which is a modern Fidonet mailer and tosser > that supports Unicode. BinkIT is designed to work with modern operating > systems and supports various character encodings, including Unicode, > making it more suitable for handling international text and modern > communication needs within the Fidonet network.
> Additionally, some Fidonet software projects may have Unicode support > added by enthusiasts or contributors. It's always a good idea to check > the latest versions and documentation of Fidonet software projects to see > if Unicode support has been added or planned.
> Overall, while traditional Fidonet software may lack native Unicode > support, modern implementations and newer projects may address this > limitation to accommodate diverse text encoding requirements.
[зачем-то мыллеры и тоссеры сюда приплёл, ну ладно, простим ему]
Do you familiar with Fidonet database formats JAM and Squish? Which one is better in your opinion?
> Yes, I'm familiar with both JAM (Joaquim-Andrew-Mats) and Squish, which > are database formats used in Fidonet message networks for storing and > managing messages and other related data.
> Here's a brief comparison of the two: > JAM (Joaquim-Andrew-Mats):
> * JAM is a relatively newer format compared to Squish. > * It offers better performance for large message bases due to its design. > * JAM supports more advanced features, such as message threading and > extended message attributes. > * It's designed to be more robust and less prone to corruption, with > built-in features for data integrity. > * JAM databases are generally more flexible and easier to work with > programmatically.
> Squish: > * Squish has been around for a longer time and is widely supported by > various Fidonet software. > * It's known for its simplicity and ease of implementation. > * Squish databases tend to be smaller in size compared to equivalent JAM > databases. > * Some older Fidonet software may only support Squish format, making it a > practical choice for compatibility reasons. > * Squish may be preferred in environments where simplicity and > compatibility are prioritized over advanced features.
> In terms of which one is better, it depends on the specific needs of the > Fidonet system and the preferences of the system operator. Generally, JAM > is considered more feature-rich and robust, especially for larger message > bases and modern Fidonet implementations. However, Squish remains a > viable option, particularly for smaller systems or those requiring > maximum compatibility with older Fidonet software.
> Ultimately, the choice between JAM and Squish often comes down to factors > such as performance requirements, desired features, compatibility > concerns, and ease of implementation.
[что-то он слышал, но какими-то общими фразами кидается]
Why do you think JAM offers better performance for large message bases?
> JAM (Joaquim-Andrew-Mats) offers better performance for large message > bases compared to Squish primarily due to its design and the way it > manages data.
> Here are some reasons why JAM may offer better performance for large > message bases:
> 1. Indexing Efficiency: JAM uses efficient indexing mechanisms that allow > for faster retrieval of messages, particularly when dealing with large > databases. Its indexing structures are optimized for quick access to > messages based on various criteria such as message number, timestamp, and > attributes.
> 2. Threaded Message Support: JAM supports threaded messages, allowing for > organized message threading within the database. This feature is > particularly useful for large message bases where discussions span > multiple threads and topics. Efficient handling of threaded messages can > contribute to better performance in navigating and accessing messages.
> 3. Data Integrity Features: JAM includes built-in features for ensuring > data integrity, such as checksums and validation mechanisms. These > features help prevent data corruption and ensure that the database > remains stable, even as it grows in size.
> 4. Optimized Storage: JAM is designed with considerations for optimized > storage and efficient use of disk space. It minimizes overhead and > fragmentation, which can be important factors in maintaining performance > as the database grows in size.
> 5. Support for Extended Message Attributes: JAM supports extended message > attributes, allowing for richer metadata associated with messages. While > this may not directly impact performance, it contributes to the > flexibility and functionality of the database, which can be advantageous > for managing large message bases.
> Overall, JAM's design prioritizes efficiency, scalability, and data > integrity, making it well-suited for handling large message bases within > Fidonet networks. However, the actual performance benefits may also > depend on factors such as hardware capabilities, disk I/O speed, and the > specific implementation of the software using the JAM format.
[рассуждает как знаток прямо]
Do you think that next generation of a Fidonet database should be SQL based?
> Transitioning to an SQL-based database for Fidonet could offer several > advantages, but it would also introduce challenges and considerations > that need to be addressed.
> Advantages of SQL-based Fidonet database:
> 1. Scalability: SQL databases are known for their scalability, which > could accommodate the growth of Fidonet networks and message bases more > effectively than traditional flat-file formats like JAM and Squish.
> 2. Flexibility: SQL databases provide a flexible data model, allowing for > more complex data structures and relationships. This could enable more > sophisticated features and functionality within Fidonet systems, such as > advanced search capabilities, user management, and analytics.
> 3. Standardization: SQL is a widely adopted standard for database > management, which could improve interoperability and compatibility with > other systems and tools that support SQL databases.
> 4. Security: SQL databases often offer robust security features, > including user authentication, access control, and data encryption, which > could enhance the security of Fidonet data.
> 5. Integration: SQL databases can easily integrate with other software > and tools that support SQL, facilitating the development of third-party > applications and utilities for Fidonet.
> Challenges and considerations:
> 1. Complexity: Implementing and managing an SQL-based database system may > require more expertise and resources compared to traditional flat-file > formats. This could present challenges for smaller Fidonet systems with > limited technical capabilities.
> 2. Migration: Transitioning existing Fidonet databases to an SQL-based > system would require careful planning and migration strategies to ensure > data integrity and minimize disruption to users and services.
> 3. Performance: While SQL databases are generally efficient and scalable, > they may introduce additional overhead compared to simpler flat-file > formats. Performance considerations must be carefully evaluated, > especially for systems with large message bases and high transaction > volumes.
> 4. Resource Requirements: SQL databases typically require more system > resources, including disk space, memory, and processing power, compared > to flat-file formats. This could be a concern for Fidonet systems running > on older or less powerful hardware.
> 5. Compatibility: Moving to an SQL-based database would require updates > to existing Fidonet software and tools to support SQL data access and > manipulation. Compatibility with legacy systems and software may need to > be addressed.
> In conclusion, while an SQL-based Fidonet database offers potential > benefits in terms of scalability, flexibility, and integration, it also > poses challenges related to complexity, migration, performance, resource > requirements, and compatibility. Any decision to adopt an SQL-based > database should be carefully evaluated based on the specific needs and > constraints of the Fidonet community.
[такой ответ можно про всё что угодно дать, но он прав, он зацепился за flat-file format против SQL]
Best Regards, Nil --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 * Origin: Linux 2.6.32-042stab145.3 (2:5015/46)
