ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (10/29/85)
Organization: There has been much reasonable discussion on the volume and content of net.sources.mac recently. The questions of commercialism and relevance to an essentially UNIX based network have been covered. In addition, net.internat, and net.bizarre have been deleted amid a general clamour about costs, traffic and rule breaking. Can I suggest that the situation with net.micro.amiga is rapidly getting out of hand, and that for once, we attempt to self-regulate a group BEFORE it becomes a serious problem, and before it requires the sort of action that generates more net.news.group and net.flame traffic than the offending groups did in the first place! The bulk of the current postings in net.micro.amiga are from so called 'developers' who receive special treatment from Commodore to enhance the commercial value of the Amiga, with an increasing volume of traffic from Commodore itself, answering technical questions, making reassuring noises, promising software and documentation issues etc. It is also very clear that there is much e-mail being passed through the network between Commodore and its developers. There is no argument that this is extremely useful and interesting traffic to the Amiga world, and peripherally interesting to many of us, but surely it is *PURE COMMERCIALISM* with the cost being met by the network as a whole, in some cases by *COMPETITORS* to Commodore, whether directly or indirectly. In addition, program sources are beginning to appear within the group, and, if net.sources.mac is any indication, these will proliferate extremely quickly. Another example which I feel we should be concerned about was the recent announcement from Intel re the arrival of the 386. This was a perfectly justifyable general announcement except for the solicitation for e-mail requests for information. Yes, there was a telephone number to phone, but I believe in such cases there should be a mandatory statement that e-mail communications will *NOT* be entered into. I admit that even I mailed a comment to Intel before I gave the implications serious thought - why should the network bear part of the cost of marketing this device? 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. To the flamers, please note that the issue is *NOT* one of free speech, nor is it any attempt to gain control over the *priviledges* we enjoy in being able to communicate in this medium. The only alternative I see, is a fully commercial pay-as-you-go structure for the network. Ray Dunn. ...philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray Disclaimer: The above is the opinion of the author as an individual, and not necessarily that of his employer or any other organisation.
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
verner@inuxh.UUCP (Matt Verner) (11/01/85)
> bout > costs, traffic and rule breaking. > ... > The bulk of the current postings in net.micro.amiga are from so called > 'developers' who receive special treatment from Commodore to enhance the > commercial value of the Amiga, with an increasing volume of traffic from > Commodore itself, answering technical questions, making reassuring noises, > promising software and documentation issues etc. It is also very clear that > there is much e-mail being passed through the network between Commodore and > its developers. > > There is no argument that this is extremely useful and interesting traffic > to the Amiga world, and peripherally interesting to many of us, but surely > it is *PURE COMMERCIALISM* with the cost being met by the network as a whole, > in some cases by *COMPETITORS* to Commodore, whether directly or indirectly. > > 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. > I agree 100%. I am hardley a disinterested party because I have been on the edge of buying an Amiga for a few weeks (waiting on some substance in the software dept). I have a lot to loose if this group were limited in some fashion but I do feel that the non-commercial nature of the net MUST be preserved or total breakdown is likely... Matt UUCP: ...ihnp4!inuxc!verner "The whole point of this sentence is to clearly explain the point this sentence is making."
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
dillon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/03/85)
(Hopefully I cut enough off to satisfy you 300 Bauder's, flames to /dev/null) > > bout > > costs, traffic and rule breaking. > > > ... > > There is no argument that this is extremely useful and interesting traffic > > to the Amiga world, and peripherally interesting to many of us, but surely > > it is *PURE COMMERCIALISM* with the cost being met by the network as a whole, > > in some cases by *COMPETITORS* to Commodore, whether directly or indirectly. > > > > 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. > > In article <373@inuxh.UUCP>, verner@inuxh.UUCP (Matt Verner) writes: > I agree 100%. I am hardley a disinterested party because I have been on > the edge of buying an Amiga for a few weeks (waiting on some substance > in the software dept). I have a lot to loose if this group were limited > in some fashion but I do feel that the non-commercial nature of the net > MUST be preserved or total breakdown is likely... Yes, the net must be kept non-commercial. But I do not agree that amiga is violating ANYTHING AT ALL. These aren't politicians, or Commodore's commercial and advertisement department, these ARE THE SOFTWARE ENGINEERS who CREATED THE AMIGA. Dale Luck, Robert R. Pariseau, and everybody else at Amiga have made it clear that do not intend to use the UseNet as a Commercialism base, but to Benefit our Newsgroup and Benefit from our Newsgroup and the people that make it up. And I would say that they're doing a pretty good job, so far. Don't flame on them until they've had a chance to get their NetAct NetTogether, NetOK? -Matt P.S. Am on the edge too.... will definately get an Amiga, the question is when, and if I can get the development kit or not.
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
dave@heurikon.UUCP (Dave Scidmore) (11/13/85)
> > 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. > > > I agree 100%. I am hardley a disinterested party because I have been on > the edge of buying an Amiga for a few weeks (waiting on some substance > in the software dept). I have a lot to loose if this group were limited > in some fashion but I do feel that the non-commercial nature of the net > MUST be preserved or total breakdown is likely... > I think all this business about Commodore using the net to promote the Amiga is nonsense. If we were to carry that idea a little further we would be forced to restrict anyone from AT&T from talking about UNIX on the net lest they be guilty of promoting AT&T. I would point out that a large portion of the articles on UNIX posted to the net are from people who work for companies in the UNIX field. Should we restrict them from contributing to the net since their company name could be associated with them and they would then be guilty of promoting their company on the net. Furthermore, many articles on UNIX posted to the net are of benefit to people who are currently selling products in the UNIX field. Are not people who work at AT&T often using the net to answer questions or present information that is then used by companies producing UNIX related products. Is this not exactly what these people are complaining about Commodore doing with the Amiga. If the net is to be used for any subject that is of interest to a large enough section of the UNIX community then are we to discriminate against Commodore simply because the Amiga does not run UNIX. Are these people who are complaining suggesting that we purge the Amiga news group of all technical information about to the Amiga and allow only information that is judged to be sufficiently useless? To those people who shout "let us purge the net and keep it clean of promotionalism" I say, it is already as unpure as you can get. David Scidmore