[net.micro.amiga] commercialism and net.micro.amiga going the way of .mac

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