tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (11/01/85)
What's wrong with the technical postings by Commodore to net.micro.amiga? If development software and manuals were only available to developers (as one post claimed), I could see your point. But in fact a C compiler, an assembler, and manuals will be available for sale to end users shortly. The technical postings thus do not benefit only developers but anyone who plans to do any sort of programming at all on the Amiga (including people who want to hook it up to Unix systems, if Unix is all you care about). I suppose you would also say that Larry Rosenstein (lsr@apple) should not be allowed to post to net.micro.mac simply because he works for Apple. Yet, he posts very useful information and I for one am thankful for his participation in net.micro.mac. As long as the people working for Apple and Commodore post technical information, rather than advertising copy, I don't see the problem. I see that you consider program sources to be undesirable. However, I would venture to guess that program sources (or binaries) are much more useful than the material posted in net.flame, net.politics, net.religion, etc. I do not see the logic behind trying to restrict useful groups that are successful when these three flamage groups account for a fairly large amount of net traffic. > Quite honestly, the only real solution I see to the current net malaise, > is to retrench ourselves into a pure UNIX network, with moderated feeds > from other interest groups, and perhaps even with full moderation on all > groups. Is it correct to interpret this as "only UNIX newsgroups and fa.* newsgroups (excuse me, some of the mod.* newsgroups) will remain"? If this is the case, I don't think you'll need to worry about phone costs destroying the net since there won't be much of a net left to destroy. I realize that backbone sites bear large parts of the cost of the net and therefore have a lot of say in how it is run. But it seems to me that the goal should be "acceptable cost and a high signal-to-noise ratio" rather than "minimal cost" (which if followed to its ultimate conclusion would require completely eliminating the net). -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edu
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (11/02/85)
> > Quite honestly, the only real solution I see to the current net malaise, > > is to retrench ourselves into a pure UNIX network, with moderated feeds > > from other interest groups, and perhaps even with full moderation on all > > groups. USENET is received on a wide variety of machines with a wide variety of operating systems, purposes, and needs. One of the needs is MacIntosh technical information and software. Probably most universities on the net use Macs. Just because you are at a site that doesn't use Macs doesn't mean that a large number of people on the net don't. And I can see nothing wrong with technical information coming directly from Apple. After all, other companies post or distribute software fixes and product announcements over USENET, and that kind of information is useful and desirable. > I realize that backbone sites > bear large parts of the cost of the net and therefore have a lot of say in how > it is run. I agree with the premise. I disagree with the conclusion. Because of their exposed position, backbone sites cannot just drop newsgroups at will. (Think also about *why* backbone sites play the role they play. I am certain that it is not philanthropy -- perhaps, they want the USENET information first hand, they would like to have more say in newsgroup creation, and they want the advertising). I believe that ultimately the concept of backbone sites is wrong, or that at the very least the layout of their connections is completely wrong. There is no reason why the USENET part of a backbone site with n connections should have a higher phone bill than any other site with n connections. Thomas.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/03/85)
In article <701@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: >I believe that ultimately the concept of backbone sites is wrong, or >that at the very least the layout of their connections is completely wrong. >There is no reason why the USENET part of a backbone site with n >connections should have a higher phone bill than any other site with >n connections. The reason backbones have such large phone bills is because they have a lot of long distance news feeds in addition to the six or so local news feeds. If everyone had only local news feeds, there would be many areas isolated from each other. In California, for example, there's no way to reach LA from SF without a long distance call. Even if you were willing to route it through as many inbetween sites as needed, there aren't enough to form a local call only chain. The backbone concept also holds down the propagation delay. It's bad now but it would be much worse without the backbones. -- The number of California lottery tickets sold is greater than the number of people in the United States of America. Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) (11/05/85)
> > > Quite honestly, the only real solution I see to the current net malaise, > > > is to retrench ourselves into a pure UNIX network, with moderated feeds > > > from other interest groups, and perhaps even with full moderation on all > > > groups. > Let's face it the entire usenet system is a commercial for unix and Dec systems. WIthout the support of major nodes like Decvax and the myriad of ATT/Bell machines usenet would only be a shadow of it's former self. These companies are not on the net for altruistic reasons, just by being there they gain a subtle commercial advantage over those who are not. Every student who uses a Unix computer is supporting the commersial interests of AT&T who give Unix to Universities at bargain basement prices. I don't see Amiga as being any worse than any other company on the net. They have a new machine and there is lot's of exciting information to learn about it. Don't let us throw the baby out with the bathwater. - Mike Gingel ...decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/05/85)
In article <5690@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >The reason backbones have such large phone bills is because they have >a lot of long distance news feeds in addition to the six or so local >news feeds. If everyone had only local news feeds, there would be >many areas isolated from each other. In California, for example, >there's no way to reach LA from SF without a long distance call. >Even if you were willing to route it through as many inbetween sites >as needed, there aren't enough to form a local call only chain. > >The backbone concept also holds down the propagation delay. It's bad >now but it would be much worse without the backbones. But why do they have to be *really* long distance, wouldn't two or three moderate distance connections be better than one ultra-long connection? I mean aren't there sites *between* SF and LA, like perhaps Sacramento(or Big Sur :-))?? Whya does it have to be a *single* jump all that way, and the LA East coast(ihnp4) connections are simply absurd! Basically with this size of a net we need three or four times as many "backbone" sites, in which case hte backbone site costs *wouldn't* be that much higher! I would be very willing to put up with another day or two in propagation delays if it would help to retain the *interesting* discussion groups on the net! It is a matter of priorities, which is more important speed or convienience? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa