gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (05/08/86)
In article <306@sdcarl.UUCP>, tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: > I logged on to the Atari Home Base BBS last night and found many useful > programs. However, I do not wish to pay for the phone time. Would any > one at Atari be willing to make these programs available by E-mail??? > thomas r. erbe > {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcarl!tre Sure, let's let {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax} pay so this guy can play with his Atari. After all, he can't afford it, but they can. In fact, why not just post the entire contents of the BBS to the net -- then *everybody* can pay for the phone time. This doesn't even rate a :v} because it's not funny. Every morning I get up and say "why do I flame so much on the net when I'm trying to be kinder in my personal life?" Every night I run into these bozos though... -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (05/08/86)
In article <779@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >In article <306@sdcarl.UUCP>, tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: >> I logged on to the Atari Home Base BBS last night and found many useful >> programs. However, I do not wish to pay for the phone time. Would any >> one at Atari be willing to make these programs available by E-mail??? >> thomas r. erbe >> {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcarl!tre > >Sure, let's let {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax} pay so this guy can >play with his Atari. After all, he can't afford it, but they >can. In fact, why not just post the entire contents of the BBS to >the net -- then *everybody* can pay for the phone time. > >John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa Please! He didn't say he couldn't afford it; He said he didn't WISH to pay for the phone time. Somehow, that makes it worse. -- andy finkel Commodore(Amiga) {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy or pyramid!amiga!andy "I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors." "Remember, no matter where you grow, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonsai.
turner@imagen.UUCP (05/09/86)
> In article <306@sdcarl.UUCP>, tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: > > I logged on to the Atari Home Base BBS last night and found many useful > > programs. However, I do not wish to pay for the phone time. Would any > > one at Atari be willing to make these programs available by E-mail??? > > thomas r. erbe > > {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcarl!tre > > Sure, let's let {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax} pay so this guy can > play with his Atari. After all, he can't afford it, but they > can. In fact, why not just post the entire contents of the BBS to > the net -- then *everybody* can pay for the phone time. > > This doesn't even rate a :v} because it's not funny. > > Every morning I get up and say "why do I flame so much on the net when > I'm trying to be kinder in my personal life?" Every night I run into these > bozos though... > -- > John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** why not indeed ? i am in the process of implementing the recently posted automatic retrival program for mod.sources and i am considering included as much of the atari16 sources as i can get my hands on. since when is the purpose of the net changed from the free exchange of ideas and information ? i certainly believe that software falls into that catagory. -- ---- "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" -Blade Runner Name: James M. Turner (not the James M. Turner at Lisp Machine Inc.) Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner CompuServe: 76327,1575 GEnie : D-ARCANGEL
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (05/10/86)
> >Every morning I get up and say "why do I flame so much on the net when >I'm trying to be kinder in my personal life?" Every night I run into these >bozos though... >-- >John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa Yup...you're a real sweet guy, John... ... this doesn't deserve a :-) either.... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo "If you can't trust wimp lawyers anymore, who can you trust...?" -- Mildred Krebs
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (05/10/86)
In article <218@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <779@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >>Sure, let's let {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax} pay so this guy can >>play with his Atari. After all, he can't afford it, but they >>can. In fact, why not just post the entire contents of the BBS to >>the net -- then *everybody* can pay for the phone time. > >Please! He didn't say he couldn't afford it; He said he didn't WISH >to pay for the phone time. > >Somehow, that makes it worse. > Here's the good part... > andy finkel > Commodore(Amiga) > {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy > or pyramid!amiga!andy > Some poor little guy who makes $3.07/hr flipping burgers at the local snack bar is flamed for "abusing the net", while people like andy finkel at Commodore feel free to use *my* tax dollars to support the Amiga! Talk about people in glass houses! Both of you guys should lighten up; I'm sure there are people at hoptoad who spend money on things which, say, Greg Woods at hao really doesn't give a flying fumigation about, but do you see that nice guy with his ST (not Greg, the flamee) complaining? (And before you point out that Commodore isn't the only company doing this at our expense, I already know that. It's just that when a representative (official or not) of an unmistakably for-profit company flames some innocent citizen for "abuse", I get severely annoyed.) - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (05/11/86)
In article <360@imagen.UUCP>, turner@imagen.UUCP writes: > > why not indeed ? i am in the process of implementing the recently > posted automatic retrival program for mod.sources and i am > considering included as much of the atari16 sources as i can get my > hands on. since when is the purpose of the net changed from the free > exchange of ideas and information ? i certainly believe that > software falls into that catagory. It seems to me that if I pay to transmit your free exchange of ideas is ceases to be free. You can send whatever you want at your expense, but when you ask me to pay for it (even implicity) you give me the right to interfer with it. I remove an average of 2 full source copies of rogue or hack from the mail queues on seismo each week. It takes about $45 worth of phone time to transfer that free exchange of information. Federal Express and a mag tape would only be about $40, yet how many people ever think about it. It cost them nothing to mail it electronically (except for the non-North Americans). I really wish the US had some sort of recharging scheme like they do in Europe. Is there really an extremely high correlation between the belief in the obligation of free exchange and 1/(number of users your computer supports) or am I overly sensitive. ---rick
mark@dmcnh.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (05/12/86)
> > > > Sure, let's let {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax} pay so this guy can > > play with his Atari. After all, he can't afford it, but they ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > can. In fact, why not just post the entire contents of the BBS to > > the net -- then *everybody* can pay for the phone time. > > > > John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa > > > why not indeed ? i am in the process of implementing the recently > posted automatic retrival program for mod.sources and i am > considering included as much of the atari16 sources as i can get my > hands on. since when is the purpose of the net changed from the free > exchange of ideas and information ? i certainly believe that > software falls into that catagory. > -- Gilmore is under the impression that the Atari is a toy, i.e. not a real computer, and therefore not a candidate for the free exchange of information on the net. I'm curious if he feels that the Mac, Amiga, and, what the hell, the IBM PC should also not have net bandwidth allocated?
tre@sdcarl.UUCP (05/13/86)
.
So what is the verdict?? Is the posting of sources and binaries for
the ST kosher? Or is the net only around for UNIX and like systems? If it
is, how are the following newsgroups justified?
net.sources.mac
mod.amiga.sources
mod.amiga.binaries
I for one, use many machines (IBM,SMI,DEC,Atari,Apple,Motorola,etc.)
at work, and most of them are not UNIX machines. I appreciate getting useful
programs for these machines from the net. If I have to, I will call a BBS
to get certain useful programs, but I prefer not to, when: A) UCSD (my place
of employ) should be paying for the acquisition, B) it is annoying to stay up
until 1 AM, only to get 20 minutes of access to a busy BBS, and C) my VAX has
uucp, which does it all so much better.
I had always suspected the net was around for the exchange of software
and related dialogue. I had no idea I would get flamed for suggesting it
continue. Please reply with intellegence this time, but if you really have
to flame, mail it to me, don't post it.
--
thomas r. erbe
{ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcarl!trefair@styx.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (05/15/86)
In article <254@dmcnh.UUCP> mark@dmcnh.UUCP (Mark Roddy) writes: > > [John] Gilmore is under the impression that the Atari is a toy, i.e. > not a real computer, and therefore not a candidate for the free > exchange of information on the net. I'm curious if he feels that the > Mac, Amiga, and, what the hell, the IBM PC should also not have net > bandwidth allocated? John Gilmore to the best of my knowledge does not hold this opinion. In fact, he was once a part of a very ambitious project to bring real networking to very small micro computer systems, called PCNet. Unfortunately, the PCNet effort collapsed about two years ago and I haven't heard anything about it since. To the here and now: at one time, I was administrator of a backbone site (dual). There are no macintoshes, ataris, or amigas anywhere around the Dual manufacturing shop, and I expect that there never will be. How can you justify spending Dual's money on moving around the *.mac *.amiga and *.atari newsgroups, when there is no direct, quantifiable benefit to Dual? Remember that you can't impress the company bean-counters with arguments based on ``altruism'' or ``duty to the network community'' because they'll laugh at you and cut the phone budget. What has been said, time and time again, which I will repeat for the benefit of those who *still* haven't figured it out yet: 1. We're (the backbone sites) doing you all a big, expensive, time-consuming favor. 2. If you don't like it, you are completely free to form your own backbone with like-minded folks elsewhere, and spend your own (collective) money on it. Please find your fellow atari owners, port the netnews software (and write some communication protocol software), and you can call each other in the dead of night at lowest phone rates, and exchange netnews articles specifically about atari computers. After all, if FIDOnet can do it with IBM PC's, why can't you? Erik E. Fair styx!fair fair@lll-tis-b.arpa
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/15/86)
In article <317@sdcarl.UUCP> tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: >. > So what is the verdict?? Is the posting of sources and binaries for >the ST kosher? Or is the net only around for UNIX and like systems? If it >is, how are the following newsgroups justified? > > net.sources.mac > mod.amiga.sources > mod.amiga.binaries > > I for one, use many machines (IBM,SMI,DEC,Atari,Apple,Motorola,etc.) >at work, and most of them are not UNIX machines. I appreciate getting useful >programs for these machines from the net. If I have to, I will call a BBS >to get certain useful programs, but I prefer not to, when: A) UCSD (my place >of employ) should be paying for the acquisition, B) it is annoying to stay up >until 1 AM, only to get 20 minutes of access to a busy BBS, and C) my VAX has >uucp, which does it all so much better. I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. (Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
turner@imagen.UUCP (05/16/86)
talk about excessive quoting ! ill try to trim this down > In article <360@imagen.UUCP>, turner@imagen.UUCP writes: > > > > why not indeed ? . . > > since when is the purpose of the net changed from the free > > exchange of ideas and information ? i certainly believe that > > software falls into that catagory. > > > It seems to me that if I pay to transmit your free exchange of > ideas is ceases to be free. > i (in the form of my company) just paid for your ideas being transmitted > You can send whatever you want at your expense, but when you ask > me to pay for it (even implicity) you give me the right > to interfer with it. horse puckey! first who said that the free (read 'uncensored') exchange of ideas was free (read 'without cost')? it ain't second, you have a right to censored what you recieve at your machine but not what passes thru it. the system i am building based on email, hence if you are not a newsfeed you bear none of the costs, if on the other hand you are a newsfeed to others then you have given your implicit consent to bear the costs of a newsfeed. > > I remove an average of 2 full source copies of rogue or hack > from the mail queues on seismo each week. > (sarcastic comment about net.police deleted (-:) {by net.police.police ?} . . > > Is there really an extremely high correlation between the belief in the > obligation of free exchange and 1/(number of users your computer supports) > or am I overly sensitive. > either you're from Stanford and don't know english or UC Berkeley and don't know math, but you mean function not correlation (the original joke was MIT and Harvard and has lost alot in the translation) > ---rick -- ---- "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" -Blade Runner Name: James M. Turner (not the James M. Turner at Lisp Machine Inc.) Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner CompuServe: 76327,1575 GEnie : D-ARCANGEL
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (05/16/86)
In article <360@imagen.UUCP>, turner@imagen.UUCP writes: > > since when is the purpose of the net changed from the free > exchange of ideas and information ? i certainly believe that > software falls into that catagory. The original request was for E-mail, not for a posting to the net. I don't think that there would be much objection to a net posting of the material in question, since it would probably be useful to many people, perhaps even some who pay the costs. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (05/16/86)
[torn out of Erik Fairs' response...] > ...you can't impress the company bean-counters with arguments based > on ``altruism'' or ``duty to the network community'' ... Recommended reading to continue this incredibly rational line of thought (that is, the fallacy of altruism and duty to the group (ie the "net") is "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It puts all this discussion in a fascinating light... [more soon] -- Dave Taylor taylor@hplabs or hplabs!taylor
chuq@sun.UUCP (05/18/86)
> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing > software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they > set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for > machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run > mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be using Unix machines to communicate. The reality is that USENET hasn't been a unix network for a long time, just a network that uses Unix. If you're serious about limiting yourself to Unix discussions, we need to kill everything else off except Unix, which would kill the net. chuq -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucid
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/19/86)
In article <2021@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: > >I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > >(Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties >of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) > >Snoopy >tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy I don't see why educational computer installations should pay for the distribution and development of Unix system. Perhaps it would be better if they limited their transmissions to library catalogues and lecture schedules. Surely nothing more than that can be justified. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (05/20/86)
In article <2021@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: >In article <317@sdcarl.UUCP> tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: >>. >> So what is the verdict?? Is the posting of sources and binaries for >>the ST kosher? Or is the net only around for UNIX and like systems? If it >>is, how are the following newsgroups justified? >> >> net.sources.mac >> mod.amiga.sources >> mod.amiga.binaries >> >> I for one, use many machines (IBM,SMI,DEC,Atari,Apple,Motorola,etc.) >>at work, and most of them are not UNIX machines. I appreciate getting useful ... >I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. (Wherein oyster@uwmacc resolves to forego flaming on this topic and enter into serious discourse...) OK. There are two ways that I work with our UNIX machine. One of them is being used right now from my office. It's an IBM PC. The other sits on the desk in my study at home, and is an Atari ST. For both of these methods of access, I need *at least* a good terminal emulator. Now add on a file transfer program or two, so I can edit files on the non- UNIX machine (effectively "off-line", since paying users like to access the UNIX machine, too, and since my wife wants to use the 'phone every once in awhile :-). Oh-- did I say off-line editing? How about a nice PD editor? What? Use UNIX-like tools on the ST for development, and transfer working, portable C code to the VAX? Sure! Now, where were we? Oh yeah; supporting non-Unix machines on a Unix network. To date, either directly or indirectly (diskettes *are* flying back and forth through USmail at our personal expense), I have gotten Xmodem programs for both the ST and Unix, a vi clone for the ST, a make utility (ST), etc. The software alone has contributed immensely to using my ST as an extension of the local Unix machine. Add in the non-software aspects of the computer-related newsgroups, and I personally find those "non-Unix" newsgroups contributing substantially to the usefulness of my local Unix machine. And if I walk down the hall here, I'll run into Mac users, Amiga owners, etc, all of whom use their pet micros in conjunction with the Unix Vax. They're all benefitting from "non-Unix" newsgroups. > >(Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties >of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) > Yes, but what does net.cooks, or net.music, or net.SF-Lovers contribute to Unix? Seems to me that if ya wanna ban non-Unix topics, those things would be the first to go (note: I just chose those particular groups 'cause I enjoy 'em, too). Actually, Chuq's answer expressed my view of USENET quite succinctly, so I'll let it rest there. -- - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) P.S. I took the liberty of editting out any specific micro newsgroup(s) in the Newsgroups line.
walt@rclex.UUCP (Walter L. Weber) (05/20/86)
>>I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >>software and discussions for other operating systems. There is, of course, adequate precedent for such an attitude: "WHAT?? Permit MY LINES to be accessed by some stranger's equipment? Without a DAA? NO WAY!" -- spoken by a well-known Ma whose name should ring a bell :-) -- Walt Weber UUCP: {harvard,ll-xn}!rclex!walt Ridge Computers PHONE: (617) 861-6000 Lexington, Mass. COMPUSERVE: 76515,2423
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (05/20/86)
I find this whole discussion rather offensive. Indeed, this whole newsgroup should not exist if one is going to construe things narrowly. (Our department owns not one ST, and I doubt that it will ever buy one. Most members of the net are in the same position.) Asking someone to E-mail some public domain code is, as far as I'm concerned, a reasonable use of the net. (It might be even better to ask for the code to be posted.) Any ST-related stuff of a non-commercial nature ought to be grist for net.micro.atari16's mill. For Tramiel's sake, let's get back to some sensible discussion!
turner@imagen.UUCP (05/21/86)
> > I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing > software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they > set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for > machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run > mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > > (Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties > of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) > > Snoopy > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (as our hero mounts his high horse, he turns and says....) if we were dealing in machines and not people i would agree with you but we are not. Allow me to stretch a point, you surely expect your company to light your office, provide furniture, health bennies etc. why ? UNIX machine do not need any of those ! We are dealing in people here and (at least) i do not live by unix alone. and i will mention net.cooks, rec, motss etc. the beauty of the net is its breadth of interests, its exciting to feel that you're not just tied into another techno-nerd net. -- ---- "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" -Blade Runner Name: James M. Turner (not the James M. Turner at Lisp Machine Inc.) Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner CompuServe: 76327,1575 GEnie : D-ARCANGEL
andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (05/21/86)
In article <2206@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) writes: >In article <218@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >>In article <779@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >>>Sure, let's let {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax} pay so this guy can >>>play with his Atari. After all, he can't afford it, but they >>>can. In fact, why not just post the entire contents of the BBS to >>>the net -- then *everybody* can pay for the phone time. >> >>Please! He didn't say he couldn't afford it; He said he didn't WISH >>to pay for the phone time. >> >>Somehow, that makes it worse. >> > Here's the good part... > < Flaming Portion Deleted > > - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) Well, I've already responded to the portion accusing Commodore of abusing the net and being a bad net.citizen by email. (and haven't heard anything back from Joel in response. (Basically, I just paraphrased George Robbins posting, pointing out that we feed news/mail around, and have to fight for our phone lines/charges like any other company, and that usenet was an own-time occupation for the engineers here) Now, to make it real clear WHY I wanted to respond to that initial message... <Flame On > It was the line "I don't WISH to pay". That was the trigger. I have nothing against sources for *any* machine being posted. I can almost always learn something from any source, even if I don't happen to use that machine. (that's why I don't like binaries, but that's something else). No, what I was commenting on was the *rather have someone else pay for something I want* attitude in that initial posting. The request wasn't *Please email/post because I can't afford them* or *Please email/post because I can't get them otherwise*, but *I'd rather have someone else pay* Whether the stuff is posted, or emailed makes no difference to my dislike of that attitude. <Flame Off > (To the initial poster: sorry about all the fuss. I wasn't *really* attacking you personally :-) By the way, since you want to use the stuff for your work, why not see if your company/university/whatever will pick up your phone bill ? (assuming the stuff isn't posted, that is) andy finkel -- andy finkel Commodore(Amiga) {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy or pyramid!amiga!andy Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. "Remember, no matter where you grow, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonsai.
seifert@hammer.UUCP (05/21/86)
In article <3710@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >> software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >> set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >> machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >> mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > >Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be >using Unix machines to communicate. My question is, "Since they have these other machines, why can't they use these other machines for discussions about these machines?" > If you're serious about limiting yourself to Unix discussions, > we need to kill everything else off except Unix, which would kill the net. That's not what I'm proposing at all. The (well-known) problem is, that the amount of traffic on usenet is getting completely out of hand. Too many resources are being consumed, and WE have to do something to fix this before the plug gets pulled on the whole net. There are a number of causes for the amount of traffic, including the growth in the number of sites, ignorant newusers making mistakes, bozos, problems with hardware and software, etc. What can we do to reduce the amount of traffic without reducing the usefulness of the net? - make the hardware and software more robust - educate newusers - kick abusers off the net (after several warnings) - go to moderated groups - put traffic for non-unix machines on those machines, making them carry their own weight. (since they can) - kill groups with high volume and very poor signal-to-noise ratios I don't really like the idea of having to go to moderated groups, since that creates a lot of work for the moderator (which would be unnecessary if only people would control themselves), and raises the possibility of censorship. But if well done, it could help increase the signal-to-noise ratio and lower the load on the net. I also don't like the idea of killing groups, but "those-in-charge" are doing it now (ala net.flame and net.bizzare). There is a problem with identifying which groups to kill, as one person's garbage is another's treasure. Having non-unix machines carry their own traffic seems like a very good way to reduce the load on the Unix machines without killing the traffic. It's fair, and it allows people who don't have access to a Unix machine to participate. I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
cem@intelca.UUCP (05/22/86)
[Sorry net.micro, I'll keep it short.] > > ... Lot's of stuff about how the net is failing and what to do about it > edited out. [Ed Note: Most of the suggestions are already implemented]... > > I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given > any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy Whereupon we come to the previous statement. Mr Seifert (aka snoopy) there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and apple machines it would have a good chance here). --Chuck McManis -- - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - {ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (05/23/86)
In article <2044@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: >In article <3710@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >>> software and discussions for other operating systems. ... >> >>Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be >>using Unix machines to communicate. A few net groups are absolutely unique to usenet (not being replicated on local BBS systems and pay-for-use systems like CompuServe). These are the more technical groups: net.unix, net.lan etc. Whatever else happens first priority must be to preserve these groups. Discussions about MSDOS, pets, gardening and Atari ST's can, if necessary, be continued elsewhere. The arguements about net groups typically reduce to personal preference, a popularity contest about which ones most of the people using the net happen to like or a signal-to-noise ratio discussion. Since the net, as it is now, cannot grow without bound, breaking it down into various (hopefully reasonably interconnected domains) is probably inevitable at some point. If nothing else, trying to transfer 1 Gig of news a day will not work with current technology. My personal preference is to think of the net as composed of four fundamental parts: net.unique.groups, net.other.technical.groups (net.micro etc), net.the.rest and mod.* and to base future plans on these fundamental domains. -- voice= 415 823-2441 uucp={ihnp4,dual,qantel}!ptsfa!jmc
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/31/86)
In article <51@intelca.UUCP> cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >> I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given >> any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. >there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. > 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to > network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) > 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical > mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and > apple machines it would have a good chance here). I didn't say "don't", I said "can't". If you feel you need a dedicated phone line, I'm sure that your local phone company would be very happy to install one for you at the same rates they charge for a phone line connected to a UNIX machine. No standard and free package? Well, get busy and write one! This is the information age, people. If you want to convince anyone that your fav machine is worth the power it sucks out of the outlet, it had better be able to communicate. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy