Re: LPF Statement on the GIF controversy (LZW patent)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: LPF Statement on the GIF controversy (LZW patent)
- From: email@example.com (Brian Kantor)
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 21:59:11 -0800
- In-reply-to: <9501182148.AA0060@RELAY.HDN.LEGENT.COM>
- Newsgroups: mail.tcp-group
- Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
In article <9501182148.AA0060@RELAY.HDN.LEGENT.COM> you write:
>Follow up on Mike Bilow's comments on acknowledging Unisys's copyright on
>Perhaps licensing restrictions is why the RFC's governing SMTP or FTP
>protocols dont address compressing the buffers.
No, the reason neither of those RFCs addresses compression is that it's
not an issue if you have a decent network - and especially not if you
have a network that's faster than the compression algorithm, which was
the case when those protocols were developed.
Compression of links would not be an issue in the ham community if we'd
get off our fat asses and do something about the speed of our radio
links instead of trying to plaster over the problem with compression
and other stopgaps.