Re: [Leica] Re: Bandwith

["A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>]

Roger Beamon wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2000, A.H.SCHMIDT wrote, at least in part:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bandwidth has nothing to do with the length of a message. A
> > message of 2 hour length uses no more bandwidth, than a message of
> > one second.
>
> <snip>
>
> It *is* a poor descriptive term, purloined, I guess, from the
> audio field. It does, however, have to do with message length to
> the extent that longer messages require more time to send and
> a server full of real long messages will require more time to
> deal with them.
>
> Many mailing lists are on servers with limited memory and long
> messages reduce the handling efficiency. I doubt that a few long
> messages bother most servers very much, but what I suspect
> should be avoided is where everyone is quoting completely
> every message to which they're replying. I cringe when I see a
> reply to some of Erwin's lengthy messgaes, quoting his post
> completely and their response being something like, "Good post
> Erwin, I agree".

Roger,  I never said, that I do not agree with Erwins comment not to
repeat a lengthy message if you send an answer.  This part of a message
i quoted, could have been from any ones message. That it was from Erwin,
was only because it was the last message of this kind I had received
before deciding to make a comment.  However, that was not the issue.
What was the issue, was the term "Bandwidth" which is wrongly used. The
problem with this type of ignorant usage of  certain terms is, that it
starts to be used more and more, and finally, by misuse, it is taken as
the correct term.

I will  replay to Jim Bricks post at a later state. It needs a more
detailed comment.

Regards, Horst Schmidt