brodie@fps.mcw.edu (01/03/90)
Has anyone considered cross-posting DECUServe note4s to this newsgroup? Probably a pain to do, and the repercussions are tricky, but nevertheless, I am bringing it up as a suggestion.... any comments? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent C. Brodie - Systems Manager brodie@fps.mcw.edu Medical College of Wisconsin +1 414 778 4500 "Love to eat them mousies, mousies what I love to eat- Bite they little heads off, nibble on they tiny feet" _CATS_ (B. Kliban)
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (01/04/90)
In article <3301.25a1c18b@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes: > Has anyone considered cross-posting DECUServe note4s to this newsgroup? > Probably a pain to do, and the repercussions are tricky, but nevertheless, > I am bringing it up as a suggestion.... > > any comments? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kent C. Brodie - Systems Manager brodie@fps.mcw.edu > Medical College of Wisconsin +1 414 778 4500 > Kent, I see a number of problems with that. 1) DECUServe is a pay service and some would surely be upset that the information that they pay for (and thier postings) are available free. This would also make it less desirable for people to pay to be on DECUServe, if they could obtain that same information at no cost. 2) DECUServe is a VAXNotes based system made up of a number of different conferences. Which conferences do you wish to see propigated to the net? All of them? That would be rather extreem (and expensive). 3) If DECUServe postings were put on NEWS, then how would NEWS users post replies back to DECUServe. As seen on the GENIE issues in other newsgroups (under the title "the rape of usenet"). One sided transmissions are frowned upon by the parties that are doing all the giving. 4) The MC has just started to allow posting of source code on DECUServe. DECUServe is not NEWS! There are certain things that can be done on one and not the other. 5) DECUServe may not want the access. Disclaimer: I do not represent DECUServe, DECUS, the DECUS MC or Board. I am a very satisfied DECUServe subscriber. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | J.M. Ivler at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, CA - VOICE: (213) 496-8727 | | INTERNET: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
spain@mdcbbs.com (01/04/90)
In article <3301.25a1c18b@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes: > Has anyone considered cross-posting DECUServe note4s to this newsgroup? > Probably a pain to do, and the repercussions are tricky, but nevertheless, > I am bringing it up as a suggestion.... I sure someone has designed a method to extract notes and post 'em in NEWS. I assume you are talking only one way (DECUSERVE => NEWS) at this time? The future of E-conferencing has to be interfacing the various systems. On the other hand, DECUSERVE may view this as a loss of revenue since ~80% read-only. Since all notes on DECUSERVE are public domain, I can't see any reason why this could not be done. -- ============================================================= | Harrison M. Spain III | Voice: (714) 952-6114 | | McDonnell Douglas M&E | Internet: spain@mdcbbs.com | | 5701 Katella Ave. | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!spain | | Cypress, CA 90630 | PSI: PSI%31060099980019::SPAIN | =============================================================
brodie@fps.mcw.edu (01/05/90)
(Besides being of interest, I want this newsgroup to start having some TOPICS, so here goes... :-) In article <626.25a31e3d@mdcbbs.com>, spain@mdcbbs.com writes: > In article <3301.25a1c18b@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes: >> Has anyone considered cross-posting DECUServe note4s to this newsgroup? >> Probably a pain to do, and the repercussions are tricky, but nevertheless, >> I am bringing it up as a suggestion.... > > I sure someone has designed a method to extract notes and post 'em in NEWS. > I assume you are talking only one way (DECUSERVE => NEWS) at this time? Yes, this is what I'd like to see. Maybe not a FULL cross posting, but perhaps one "group" of topics? (maybe DECUS announcements, symposia information ,etc...) > The future of E-conferencing has to be interfacing the various systems. On the > other hand, DECUSERVE may view this as a loss of revenue since ~80% read-only. Loss of revenue? AHEM. I believe DECUS is strictly non-profit?! (or is DECUServe run by an independant firm?) > Since all notes on DECUSERVE are public domain, I can't see any reason why this > could not be done. I agree. Has anyone out there (with DECUServe access, of course) tried to "download" topics/messages? Could be interesting. And I also think that if DECUServe messages were posted to here, they would help create INTEREST into getting access to DECUServe, not the other way around. (since readers could only READ and not POST, they may want more access than usenet allows..) Additionally, I believe it would give more "exposure" to the DECUS organization as a whole.. -kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent C. Brodie - Systems Manager brodie@fps.mcw.edu Medical College of Wisconsin +1 414 778 4500 ____ ____ _____ / /) / /)__/ ____) /__ / ) /__ / ____/ ( ) / ( ) / "How to tell a cat from a meatloaf" (___)/ (___)/ _CATS_ (B. Kliban)
hassinger@lmrc.uucp (01/09/90)
In article <3306.25a4609f@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes: ... > Loss of revenue? AHEM. I believe DECUS is strictly non-profit?! (or is > DECUServe run by an independant firm?) No, DECUServe is run by a volunteer group of DECUS members. The hardware is located in the DECUS offices and the hands-on part of the operation (backups, reset the modems, get the phone lines fixed, etc.) is done by the paid DECUS staff. However, it still costs a considerable amount of money each year, and the expectation is that DECUServe will more or less pay its way. The only revenue stream is user subscription fees. My outsider's impression of the last budget cycle was that DECUServe was still in the red and its continued existence was somewhat in doubt. At last report it seemed to need a considerable increase in subscribers to get to a healthy level. I am sure it can not afford any significant drop. >> Since all notes on DECUSERVE are public domain, I can't see any reason why this >> could not be done. > > I agree. Has anyone out there (with DECUServe access, of course) tried > to "download" topics/messages? Could be interesting. Correct, I don't think DECUServe has a way to stop this from happening. It is quite feasible to do downloads, although it presently has to be done more or less manually. OTOH, someone contemplating doing this might want to be concerned about potential unfavorable reaction either from the DECUS community or perhaps from those concerned with increased net traffic here. I can't say that there would be any, but there might be. Increasing the traffic here by thousand(s) of notes per month you can't reply to might be unpopular, I do not know...
brodie@fps.mcw.edu (02/02/90)
Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI Lines: 14 In article <5982.25c6f57f@pbs.uucp>, sdroppers@pbs.uucp (Seton Droppers) writes: > DECUServe is currently working on getting UUCP up and running. We have a few > minor problems with modems right now, but it looks like those problems are > going to go away. > > etc.... Glad to hear it. Again, I apologize for starting such a controversial discussion (however, this newsgroup needs SOME discussion!). Keep us posted! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent C. Brodie - Systems Manager brodie@fps.mcw.edu Medical College of Wisconsin +1 414 778 4500
hassinger@lmrc.uucp (02/02/90)
In article <2082.25c5b17a@mccall.uucp>, tp@mccall.uucp writes: > In article <4530@lmrc.uucp>, hassinger@lmrc.uucp writes: ... > OK, maybe refuse is the wrong word. Somebody pointed out that the stuff is > all supposed to be public domain, so nobody could stop someone else from > posting the info elsewhere. Likewise, any DECUServe subscriber can post > things on DECUServe, as long as they take responsibility for the postings > following the rules. So theoretically, a subscriber could gateway the > material without DECUServe's approval, or knowledge even. Correct, anyone who wants to could gateway DECUServe notes out to the net, or do any number of other things with them for that matter. And yes, in theory anyone could gateway net postings back into DECUServe via *their* DECUServe account, even without telling the DECUServe management about it. In fact I have heard of code that does just this type of gateway-ing running inside DEC on their Notes network and maybe elsewhere too, so it can be done. In the DECUServe case however, the person who causes the posting to be made, the owner of that account, is responsible for the content of each and every posting. They are bound by a well defined set of canons. Anyone who expects to retain their DECUServe account for very long would have to manually review every posting before it was put up on DECUServe. They could not use an automated gateway. Like it or not, that is the way it is. DECUServe must work under a very different set of constraints from Usenet. ... > I'll have to take your word for the factionalized political setting of > DECUServe, ... Really its the state of DECUS more than DECUServe although there are differences at the technical level there. ... > 1) There could be enough people out there that would rather dial in to > DECUServe rather than run news such that there would be a big enough > subscriber base to support the system. ... I believe it is still true that even without a two way news gateway, DECUServe does not have enough subscribers to break even, it is increasing prices, and its future is not entirely secure. You have to at least keep this in mind when you suggest things that could reduce the subscriber base. There might not be any system at all if subscriptions go down. ... > I will assume that the following just looks like a flame and wasn't really > meant to be one. If I'm wrong on that, correct me and I'll generate a more > appropriate response. ... No flame intended but I know what you mean, it can be a fine line sometimes... ... Re "free ride" - I think DECUServe has turned out to be a premium grade service at a premium price. That is, it costs more to use than Usenet (small subscription fee plus phone costs), but it provides faster response and a higher signal to noise ratio, partly because of its inherent design (one machine, VAX Notes, single coherent message base, truly "real time" question/answer cycles...) and partly because of the highly structured and moderated conferences and overall management (some one is in charge if you will). It turns out to cost a lot of money to do this, even with the subscribers paying their own phone bills and volunteers for most of the work. Yes, it would be nice to have the same level of service available to everyone on the net "for free", but someone has to pay the bills. Should some get it for free and others have to pay so they can? I think the real answer depends more on details of exactly what is done than on grand principles anyway. ... >> Get on DECUServe and get into the discussion. Become >> the "champion" for your idea. That is the way DECUS works. That is the way >> you get things done in the Society. Take it from one who has been doing just >> this for over twenty years. > > I'm not allowed to express my views unless I pay a subscriber fee plus > connect time and go through the hassle of dialing in to their system to do > so? I haven't been in DECUS for 20 years, but that sure hasn't been my > observation of how it works. Not at all. You certainly can express your views, but what I am saying is that doing it here is not very effective because the people you have to talk to and the relevant discussions are there; just a practical consideration. And I don't think you meant that "champion"ing ideas is not the way DECUS works. I assure you that IS the way things get done in DECUS, as well as most other organizations I know of. In any case, the discussions about these subjects are most certainly going on on DECUServe, and have been all along. If you want to help make it happen you will be much more effective being there, in them, and you will also be in a better position to to understand what the constraints and limits are. Also, as I said, much work *is* being done to find ways to do the parts of this that can make sense within DECUServe's built in constraints. Much of it by most capable people who are very familiar with the possibilities you have outlined and who want them as much as you do. So - keep the faith, and come on over, DECUServe offers a lot... :-) Bob Hassinger 508-435-9061 ...uunet!ccavax!lmrc!hassinger hassinger@lmrc.UUCP
tp@mccall.uucp (02/02/90)
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA Lines: 78 In article <5982.25c6f57f@pbs.uucp>, sdroppers@pbs.uucp (Seton Droppers) writes: > DECUServe is currently working on getting UUCP up and running. We have a few > minor problems with modems right now, but it looks like those problems are > going to go away. > > The VAXnotes conferences most likely will somehow be gated to some sort of > news or mail feed. Work is going on for that at other places. What we will do > with gated news is another problem. > > It is likely that each individual that has a DECUServe account will be allowed > to dial in and poll the DECUServe machine on a regular basis. (Remember, I > said *likely*, not *would*). > > It might be possible for a DECUServe subscriber to forward vms mail from > DECUServe back over a UUCP link. > > Yes, all public material on DECUServe is "public domain", one of our cannons > specificly requires that all postings can be freely redistributed and modified. > > Time frame? Well DECUServe is run by volunteers... > > I do not think we are worried about shooting ourselves in the foot yet. The > big problem is not letting the notes out, but the fact each individual posting > on DECUServe must "owned" by someone. The other issue is the different > environments that Notes and News have. Notes resides in a single node, with a > very strict topic/response structure while News is much more easy going. You > often get a number of responses to a subject, out of order. Sometimes you even > get responses before the topic... If you could get a moderator for each conference you wanted to gateway, I think you could solve both problems. How about a slight refinement of a previous posting: Have a basically one way gateway from DECUServe to news. You lose a little bit of the VAXnotes structuring, maybe, but only for the news side. The newsgroup is marked as moderated, so all postings are mailed to the moderator. The moderator assumes "ownership" of the posting, though the actual sender mail address, etc would be used (maybe some standard header giving the moderator address and indicating that he is "responsible" for it, to whatever degree is required by the DECUServe canons). The moderator then does whatever reformatting is neccessary (with a program of course), and posts the article into DECUServe directly via VAXnotes, so that it lands in the right place in the response structure. This then flows to the news side via the gateway. This obviously works best if there is a way to get the message from the moderators machine into the DECUServe VAXnotes conference directly, but I'm not sure how that would happen. The next best alternative would be to upload the articles to the DECUServe system (with Kermit, say) and then enter VAXnotes and put them all in the appropriate places that way. The ultimate would be if the gateway was smart enough to look at the message-id's in the References: line of the followup and put it into the appropriate reply chain, holding it back if the original article hasn't been received (and returning it to the moderator after 3 days if the original never arrives). If you had such a super-smart gateway, then the moderator could simply post the messages to news and let the gateway get them into VAXnotes appropriately. Granted this is all a lot of work for a moderator, but probably comparable to the work the current moderators on usenet put in, and they seem to be able to find people willing to do it. > The long term? How does DECUServe on the "Internet" sound? No promises, but > it is a long term project we are very interested in. Sounds interesting, but on what software platform? Does VAXnotes speak TCP/IP? Or do you mean once a news gateway is running, via NNTP? Or... (Just giving you food for thought.) -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
tp@mccall.uucp (02/06/90)
In article <4589@lmrc.uucp>, hassinger@lmrc.uucp writes: > Anyone who expects > to retain their DECUServe account for very long would have to manually review > every posting before it was put up on DECUServe. They could not use an > automated gateway. Very reasonable. That is why I suggested a moderator. I don't know if I made this point before, but a moderator could also help keep the quality (signal to noise ratio) of the usenet-submitted articles at the DECUServe levels, so as to avoid the (very likely) possibility that an un-moderated usenet gateway would bring down the quality of the overall traffic. > Re "free ride" - I think DECUServe has turned out to be a premium grade service > at a premium price. That is, it costs more to use than Usenet (small > subscription fee plus phone costs), but it provides faster response and a > higher signal to noise ratio, partly because of its inherent design (one > machine, VAX Notes, single coherent message base, truly "real time" > question/answer cycles...) and partly because of the highly structured and > moderated conferences and overall management (some one is in charge if you > will). I'm not quite sure about the advantages you list for DECUServe, and wonder how much of it is just subjective opinion: Faster response - Over 2400 bps, compared to running news on my VS3100? I doubt it. If you meant faster response to questions, see below. Higher signal to noise - Even compared to a moderated newsgroup on usenet? Groups like comp.sources.*, comp.risks, etc. Have no noise at all except for administrivia. If you go with a moderator, you can acheive just about any quality level the moderator is willing to enforce. One machine - This is a plus and a minus. The plus is because you don't have propagation delays. The minus is because you have to dial into that machine and read stuff on LD time. VAX Notes - Is this an advantage? I've only used it at DECUS symposia, so I'm not a skilled user, but it seemed to be about even to me. It seems to organize a discussion better, but on the assumption that you want to read it all. It seems to offer fewer capabilities for "skimming" through and reading just what you want to read. I've used the notesfiles system from UIUC, which is where the concept of VAXnotes came from (having used both, I'm reasonably sure of this, though DEC may deny it), and have always preferred news, although notes would work better in a one machine environment than a networked environment, because of the way responses are chained. coherent message base - I don't quite know what you mean here. Real time Q&A - I guess that depends on how often you call in. I've gotten responses to usenet articles the same day (once within 30 minutes). If I were on DECUServe, I doubt I could manage to call in more than twice a week. I'm using a workstation, so it is easy to keep news in a window and hop back and forth during compiles, or for little 5 minute "breaks". Having to dial in means I would have to dedicate a block of time (because of phone charges), and that is difficult for me to do. I suspect othersfeel similarly. This is why I'm not on DECUServe. I probably wouldn't be even if it were free. My company would willingly pay for it if I told them it was worth while, but I doubt seriously I would ever use it (I should call DSIN regularly, but I don't). Moderation - I suspect this is of equal effectiveness on usenet vs. DECUServe. As far as someone being in control, this is an issue that hasn't come up yet on VMSnet. VMSnet is a project of the VMSnet working group of the VAX SIG of DECUS. I'm not sure what degree of control that working group has over the traffic in the group. Probably as much as we want to claim. People will vote with their feet. For instance, I've been "managing" VMSnet almost single handedly, with input from others. There have been no formal votes, I do things when I feel there is a concensus. In a sense, I am in charge of the net, although we have no official policy on this, and should probably create one. I'm in favor or the working group retaining some degree of management authority, to avoid some of the things that go on on usenet (cf sci.aquaria). Such a policy might ease some of the gatewaying issues. VMSnet is not usenet, and may be easier for DECUServe to work with (for one thing, I can guarantee a receptive audience!). > It turns out to cost a lot of money to do this, even with the > subscribers paying their own phone bills and volunteers for most of the work. I would guess that the main cost is the cost of the machine itself. This certainly is a real cost, and is why I've always supposed that they would be reluctant to do anything that might cut into their funding, but based on Seton's message, it looks like they are looking at it, so maybe there is a solution available for that problem. > Yes, it would be nice to have the same level of service available to everyone > on the net "for free", but someone has to pay the bills. Should some get it > for free and others have to pay so they can? If you look at your list of advantages, most of them would not transfer across the gateway, thus the people on the net would not get the same level of service (note that many people are willing to pay uunet for increased levels of service). Also, it could be argued that increasing the size of the readership (and thus the number of potential posters) is providing increased service to the paying members of the service. Providing better service for the paying members should certainly take priority over NOT providing service to people who don't pay, always assuming, of course, that doing so doesn't undermine the viability of the service (i.e. the funding structure). > I think the real answer depends > more on details of exactly what is done than on grand principles anyway. Absolutely. I think there are ways to do this that MIGHT work, but I certainly don't know for sure. > Not at all. You certainly can express your views, but what I am saying is that > doing it here is not very effective because the people you have to talk to and > the relevant discussions are there; just a practical consideration. That is why I said I can't do much about making it happen. From a practical viewpoint, I can't talk to the right people. If I wanted to join DECUServe, it would be to participate in the discussions. I'm not likely to join for the sole purpose of joining this debate. > In any case, the discussions about these subjects are most certainly going on > on DECUServe, and have been all along. If you want to help make it happen you > will be much more effective being there, in them, and you will also be in a > better position to to understand what the constraints and limits are. Glad to hear that the discussions are going on. And yes, I know I would be more effective on this issue if I were part of them. But I'm not and could not conveniently be. When the issue came up here, I had no idea it had ever come up on DECUServe. I simply tried to counter some technical objections, because it sounded like a good idea, and I'd hate to see it abandoned for technical reasons that were unsound. I wish I could join the debate, but it isn't worth $60 plus connect time to me, and I can't in good concience ask my company to pay for me to get into an argument. If I thought I'd make any use of the service, that would be different. > Also, as I said, much work *is* being done to find ways to do the parts of this > that can make sense within DECUServe's built in constraints. Much of it by > most capable people who are very familiar with the possibilities you have > outlined and who want them as much as you do. Good. In that case, there isn't much else for me to say. I'm sorry if I've wasted time covering things that have been covered elsewhere (and in a more effective forum). If any of my ideas do look useful to anyone who IS on DECUServe, feel free to use them. > So - keep the faith, and come on over, DECUServe offers a lot... :-) I would probably join DECUServe if it could deliver traffic to my machine in some form. If there were a VAXnotes gateway to news, I would probably join to get the data onto my machine, even if it were not permissible to distribute it net-wide (for lack of moderators, for instance). As I said above, I just don't have the time to hassle with it in its current form. My long distance budget is very limited, so I really couldn't make much use of it. And I certainly don't have money to spend on buying VAXnotes. -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu