Hacker News Reader

arXiv is great, but represents a very small fraction of the total published work, is extremely field specific, and old papers are still very relevant. I find myself regularly relying upon citations from as early as the 1910's.

It's not even close to an alternative.

For my PhD thesis I used some papers from the 1800s along with many from the 1900s to 1950s because those were when the foundation papers were published in one area I was working in.

What dilemma?

I don't do research, but from my point of view the issue is pretty much settled, there's no reason to doubt. Current publisher are just plain wrong and don't deserve people to feel bad over them.

There are whole fields, some of them rather important, that essentially don't use arXiv.

has almost zero life sciences content