But if others find the LO panhandling and begging to be
as irritating as I do then there is a solution:
https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/howto-disable-libreoffice-donations-banner/63169/6
I started LibreOffice (LO) today and I was greeted with a banner
at the top of the main window that was essentially begging
for a donation ($$$$).
What the fuck is this crap?
I am so sorry, but FOSS is an AMATEUR movement and depends
only upon the "love" of programming for the community.
I started LibreOffice (LO) today and I was greeted with a banner
at the top of the main window that was essentially begging
for a donation ($$$$).
What the fuck is this crap?
I am so sorry, but FOSS is an AMATEUR movement and depends
only upon the "love" of programming for the community. If
a project has to beg for donations then that says a lot about
its true motivations.
I contribute to FOSS both through programming and other means
and I NEVER expect any compensation, monetary or otherwise.
I truly appreciate LO but I also do not NEED LO. If this
donation bullshit continues I just may move to alternatives.
On 9/13/2025 8:57 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
I started LibreOffice (LO) today and I was greeted with a banner at the
top of the main window that was essentially begging for a donation
($$$$).
What the fuck is this crap?
I am so sorry, but FOSS is an AMATEUR movement and depends only upon
the "love" of programming for the community. If a project has to beg
for donations then that says a lot about its true motivations.
I contribute to FOSS both through programming and other means and I
NEVER expect any compensation, monetary or otherwise.
I truly appreciate LO but I also do not NEED LO. If this donation
bullshit continues I just may move to alternatives.
Cheapskate.
On 9/13/2025 8:57 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
I started LibreOffice (LO) today and I was greeted with a banner
at the top of the main window that was essentially begging
for a donation ($$$$).
What the fuck is this crap?
I am so sorry, but FOSS is an AMATEUR movement and depends
only upon the "love" of programming for the community. If
a project has to beg for donations then that says a lot about
its true motivations.
I contribute to FOSS both through programming and other means
and I NEVER expect any compensation, monetary or otherwise.
I truly appreciate LO but I also do not NEED LO. If this
donation bullshit continues I just may move to alternatives.
Individual programmers start free and open software
movement, but now it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
You are saying like somebody watching World from the sky! Look at the statistics Linux Kernel v6.1:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 15:28:40 +0200, Jacek Marcin Jaworski wrote:
Individual programmers start free and open software
movement, but now it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
Once they contribute the code, they no longer "control" it.
In comp.os.linux.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 15:28:40 +0200, Jacek Marcin Jaworski wrote:
Individual programmers start free and open software movement, but now
it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
Once they contribute the code, they no longer "control" it.
Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the code others contribute.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 15:28:40 +0200, Jacek Marcin Jaworski wrote:
Individual programmers start free and open software movement, but now
it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
Once they contribute the code, they no longer “control” it.
I started LibreOffice (LO) today and I was greeted with a banner
at the top of the main window that was essentially begging
for a donation ($$$$).
What the fuck is this crap?
I am so sorry, but FOSS is an AMATEUR movement and depends
only upon the "love" of programming for the community. If
a project has to beg for donations then that says a lot about
its true motivations.
I contribute to FOSS both through programming and other means
and I NEVER expect any compensation, monetary or otherwise.
I truly appreciate LO but I also do not NEED LO. If this
donation bullshit continues I just may move to alternatives.
It reminds me of YouTube which once was a vibrant community
for sharing video information but now it has degenerated
into a click-baiting money grab where the majority of posted
material is garbage.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 15:28:40 +0200, Jacek Marcin Jaworski wrote:
Individual programmers start free and open software
movement, but now it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
Once they contribute the code, they no longer “control” it.
So your above comment is very stupid. And it seems you have no idea
about good and bad software
The same is true for huge corpos which decide free and open source way
of coding. This is the reason why almost all free and open source
programs break the great "zero conf" design rule ...
This is the reason why many free and open programs are monoliths and
there is no way to extend via simple plugins (note: KDE Krusader).
So your above comment is very stupid.
Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the
code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps"
Surprisingly, it turns out that programmers like to eat.
Yeah, that works fine when you are young, stupid and living in your parents' house. Once you grow up, idealism goes out the window and reality sets in. So working for free no longer seems like such a cool idea.
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:12:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Surprisingly, it turns out that programmers like to eat.
Yeah, that works fine when you are young, stupid and living in your parents' >> house. Once you grow up, idealism goes out the window and reality sets in. So
working for free no longer seems like such a cool idea.
Non sequitur.
As has been said before:
If Tyrone likes it, then it is garbage.
If Tyrone doesn't like it, then it is very good.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 15:28:40 +0200, Jacek Marcin Jaworski wrote:
You are saying like somebody watching World from the sky! Look at the
statistics Linux Kernel v6.1:
The kernel does not print a banner message at every boot asking for donations.
LibreOffice is, by default, placing such a message, in the manner
of Micro$hit Winblows, into the face of every user at startup.
Users already know that they can contribute to the projects of their
choice. There is no need to panhandle or beg. If FOSS software intends
to rely only on user donations then they should get out.
Fortunately, as I have shown, this outrageous behavior can be disabled.
At my own expense, I contribute to FOSS and I NEVER expect any compensation of any kind.
W dniu 13.09.2025 o 14:57, Farley Flud pisze:
I started LibreOffice (LO) today and I was greeted with a banner
at the top of the main window that was essentially begging
for a donation ($$$$).
What the fuck is this crap?
I am so sorry, but FOSS is an AMATEUR movement and depends
only upon the "love" of programming for the community.
You are saying like somebody watching World from the sky!
Individual programmers start free and open software
movement,
but now it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
Lawrence DOliveiro pisze:
Jacek Marcin Jaworski wrote:
Individual programmers start free and open software
movement, but now it is pure controlled by huge corpos.
Once they contribute the code, they no longer control it.
(verbose claptrap, snipped)
So your above comment is very stupid.
(further idiocy deleted, mostly unread)--
???
Only documents that require much evolution and editing are
circulated as 'source'.
On 13/09/2025 23:26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies
contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the
code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps"
Who else is interested in an alternative and free standard to Microsoft Office?
If you want to disseminate a finished document, you do it as a PDF.
Only documents that require much evolution and editing are circulated as 'source'.
Only big companies do that.
In terms of formatted documents anyway. Let's not introduce plain text source code.
On 2025-09-14 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/09/2025 23:26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies
contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the
code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps"
Who else is interested in an alternative and free standard to Microsoft
Office?
If you want to disseminate a finished document, you do it as a PDF.
Only documents that require much evolution and editing are circulated as
'source'.
Only big companies do that.
In terms of formatted documents anyway. Let's not introduce plain text
source code.
In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email.
The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded
and the servers could barely cope.
The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got
it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It
was crazy.
In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email.
The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded
and the servers could barely cope.
The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got
it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It
was crazy.
Exchange always had the reputation of being quite smart with
attachments, storing them separated from the original message, and doing
with the attachments what we today call deduplication.
... that's something that unixoid mail systems still don't do, we
store the messages including the non-8bit-compatible inefficiently
encoded attachments without deduplication at all.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:52:45 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Exchange always had the reputation of being quite smart with
attachments, storing them separated from the original message, and doing
with the attachments what we today call deduplication.
How did that work, if not by encoding links in the message in a
proprietary format that is tied back to a particular central proprietary >email server?
... that's something that unixoid mail systems still don't do, we
store the messages including the non-8bit-compatible inefficiently
encoded attachments without deduplication at all.
How would that be handled, given that it cannot be done in proprietary >Exchange style?
On 2025-09-14 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/09/2025 23:26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies
contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the
code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps"
Who else is interested in an alternative and free standard to
Microsoft Office?
If you want to disseminate a finished document, you do it as a PDF.
Only documents that require much evolution and editing are circulated
as 'source'.
Only big companies do that.
In terms of formatted documents anyway. Let's not introduce plain text
source code.
In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email.
The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded
and the servers could barely cope.
The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got
it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It
was crazy.
IT wanted we sent links to shared folders instead. Preaching to the walls.
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:52:45 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Exchange always had the reputation of being quite smart with
attachments, storing them separated from the original message, and
doing with the attachments what we today call deduplication.
How did that work, if not by encoding links in the message in a
proprietary format that is tied back to a particular central
proprietary email server?
That was transparent to the client; the client saw a regular message
with a regular attachment.
... that's something that unixoid mail systems still don't do, we
store the messages including the non-8bit-compatible inefficiently
encoded attachments without deduplication at all.
How would that be handled, given that it cannot be done in
proprietary Exchange style?
I don't have the slightest idea how we would do that without
breaking tradition with our spool formats.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:49:07 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:52:45 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Exchange always had the reputation of being quite smart with
attachments, storing them separated from the original message, and
doing with the attachments what we today call deduplication.
How did that work, if not by encoding links in the message in a
proprietary format that is tied back to a particular central
proprietary email server?
That was transparent to the client; the client saw a regular message
with a regular attachment.
So it would not work with messages sent to users outside the Microsoft
walled garden?
I don't have the slightest idea how we would do that without
breaking tradition with our spool formats.
And the need for it has, if anything, decreased now compared to then.
I got a support call back in the days when a 64k link was a very
expensive thing...the customer wanted to know why all his emails had ceased.
A look in the log files revealed a 25Mbyte email entitled 'My New Baby'
with an attached video file still in the process of being transferred.,
The customer didn't even need to be told who had sent it.
On Sep 14, 2025 at 8:13:38 PM EDT, ""Carlos E.R."" <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:
On 2025-09-14 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/09/2025 23:26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies
contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the
code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps"
Who else is interested in an alternative and free standard to Microsoft
Office?
If you want to disseminate a finished document, you do it as a PDF.
Only documents that require much evolution and editing are circulated as >>> 'source'.
Only big companies do that.
In terms of formatted documents anyway. Let's not introduce plain text
source code.
In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email.
The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded
and the servers could barely cope.
The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got
it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It
was crazy.
Yeah that happens when you Reply To All AND keep the attachments in the Reply To All. Just reply To Sender and delete the attachments. What is REALLY funny
is the people who plead "Stop replying to All" and their plea was - you guessed it - sent to All.
Not to mention that Exchange servers - like everything else - have come a long
way in 25 years.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email.
The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded
and the servers could barely cope.
The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got
it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It
was crazy.
Exchange always had the reputation of being quite smart with
attachments, storing them separated from the original message, and
doing with the attachments what we today call deduplication.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I got a support call back in the days when a 64k link was a very
expensive thing...the customer wanted to know why all his emails had ceased. >>
A look in the log files revealed a 25Mbyte email entitled 'My New Baby'
with an attached video file still in the process of being transferred.,
The customer didn't even need to be told who had sent it.
I remember a breakdown in an ISP mail server because some customer has
sent themselve the backup of their workstation.
In the early days of e-mail malware scanners, checking for things like
"no space left on device" was considered luxury ("we need to be on the market, ship it!"), so the e-mail scanner crashed, the incoming e-mail
got a 4xx error, and the sending server retried.
I was still green behind my ears back then, so it took me a while to
diagnose the repeated crashes.
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So it would not work with messages sent to users outside the Microsoft
walled garden?
Why? The SMTP connector could take care of that? I am talking about
storing messages in the mailboxes of local users, implemented in a
time when _we_ were still using POP3 and IMAP was rocket science.
And the need for it has, if anything, decreased now compared to then.
I think that the admins of bigger installations¹ would disagree.
¹ including cloud operators
The IT department was angry at all of us and constantly bitching to
please put the doc files instead on shared folders, not on the
email, because the servers could barely cope with all that traffic.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:44:42 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The IT department was angry at all of us and constantly bitching to
please put the doc files instead on shared folders, not on the
email, because the servers could barely cope with all that traffic.
Meanwhile, the open-source folks are sending each other diffs and
patches. E.g. (from a recent fix to the Blender manual):
No need to re-send the entire thing (over 4000 pages’ worth!) for such small changes, is there?--
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
What’s a better alternative?
W dniu 16.09.2025 o 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro pisze:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
What’s a better alternative?
git?
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So it would not work with messages sent to users outside the Microsoft
walled garden?
Why? The SMTP connector could take care of that? I am talking about
storing messages in the mailboxes of local users, implemented in a
time when _we_ were still using POP3 and IMAP was rocket science.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. If all the users are accessing
the same email server, then there is no SMTP involved. How would POP3
create a link to a previously-downloaded attachment?
I think that the admins of bigger installations¹ would disagree.
¹ including cloud operators
You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you?
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you?
I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
[large email services de-duplicating attachments internally]
You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you?
I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail
twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by
introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form
exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized.
That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited
- you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of
base64.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
What’s a better alternative?
On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:[large email services de-duplicating attachments internally]
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through GmailYou don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you?
I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by
introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form
exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then
you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized.
That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of
attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of
base64.
They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:[large email services de-duplicating attachments internally]
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through GmailYou don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you?
I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by
introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form
exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >>> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized.
That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of
attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >>> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >>> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of
base64.
They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed.
Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in
signed messages only.
On 2025-09-16 21:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote:Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:[large email services de-duplicating attachments internally]
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through GmailYou don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>>>>I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by
introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form
exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >>>> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized.
That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of
attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if
so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >>>> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of
base64.
They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed.
signed messages only.
Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that
means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent
read-write compression.
On 2025-09-16 21:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:[large email services de-duplicating attachments internally]
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through GmailYou don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>>>>I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by
introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form
exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >>>> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized.
That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of
attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if
so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >>>> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of
base64.
They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed.
Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in
signed messages only.
Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that
means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent
read-write compression.
On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
[large email services de-duplicating attachments internally]
You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you?
I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user.
Again, server side.
Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail
twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by
introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form
exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then
you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized.
That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of
attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of
base64.
They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed.
On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
What’s a better alternative?
I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches.
Like having two columns.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:57:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
What’s a better alternative?
I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches.
Like having two columns.
Do you find that makes it easier to merge patches from different contributors?
On 2025-09-17 07:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:57:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway.
What’s a better alternative?
I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches.
Like having two columns.
Do you find that makes it easier to merge patches from different
contributors?
No. It makes easier reading. Emails are for reading.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:[thread about MS Exchange *internally* deduplicating attachments]
Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that
means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent >>read-write compression.
Exchange used a database back then. I think it was JET.
Greetings
Marc
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,070 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 151:46:37 |
| Calls: | 13,733 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,966 |
| D/L today: |
727 files (253M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,418,445 |