webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/09/87)
In article <4093@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > I should point out that all this anti-Allbery verbiage, I have only attacked error. You may, of course, identify with whatever you choose. > I vote that this net miscarriage be redirected to /dev/null: with my feet. > As of now, my global KILL file will contain a command to junk all articles > by Mr. Webber. I have more important things to do than read articles wherein > Mr. Webber twists and turns in order to insult me. It'll be interesting to > see how long it'll take for Mr. Webber to start mailing his insults at me > instead to make sure I can see them. I quite assure you I won't bother sending you mail. Past history has shown that you ignore the content of the postings even when you ``reply'' to them. However, for the benefit of others, I will continue to correct those errors that I see posted to the net and that I happen to feel like correcting. Enjoy. --------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
alvitar@madhat.UUCP (Phil Harbison) (08/10/87)
In article <320@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu writes: > I quite assure you I won't bother sending you mail. Past history has > shown that you ignore the content of the postings even when you > ``reply'' to them. Past history has shown that Brandon answers my mail both promptly and courteously. Considering the content of your messages, it is no surprise that you don't receive the same treatment. > ... However, for the benefit of others, I will continue to correct > those errors that I see posted to the net and that I happen to feel > like correcting. Please spare us the agony of any future "corrections". In <13649@topaz.rutgers.edu>, webber@topaz.rutgers.edu writes: > > The moderated comp.sources.misc replaced the unmoderated net.sources > > in May 1987. This was done by the Usenet backbone in response to the > > observed fact that net.sources was close to 90% NON-sources. ... > > Only if you think 70% is close to 90%. Incidently, such statistics > are actually rather messy since the postings on net.sources were quite > episodic (I used the last 6 months to get my stats). Brandon may have exaggerated the percentage, but it is true that the old net.sources was mostly non-source. Of the last 556 articles received at madhat, only 248 (45%) were source, so 55% of the articles were non- source. This covers a period of 5 months, so it should average out any "episodes". I archive most source groups at madhat and I usually glean the articles in groups of 100. It was not unusual to throw away 70 out of 100 articles in net.sources. > ... clearly the old set-up was producing more sources than the new. Brandon is sending out plenty of source; however, quantity is not the main benefit of a moderated source group. The main benefit is that the non-source articles now go to another group, so I can choose not to read them or pay to get them. I can archive everything in comp.sources.misc (without gleaning) because it is almost 100% source. In <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu>, webber@topaz.rutgers.edu writes: > DoD does not `own' any `name' (I bet they haven't even applied for a > trademark). Any way, I see that you couldn't find an RFC or any other > `official' document to back up your position, so you simply decided to ADA is a trademark of DoD, so they own at least one name. As for RFC's that make reference to Internet, how about this quote for the opening page of RFC940: This RFC discusses standardizing the protocol used in subnetted environments in the ARPA-Internet. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. You will find similar language on the opening pages of RFC841, RFC917, RFC937, RFC948, RFC950, RFC956, RFC957, and RFC958, to name a few. It is clear from the use of the term "Internet" throughout these documents that the authors are referring to DOD-sponsored networks running the Internet protocol suite. The following quotes are taken from RFC969, File Transfer Protocol. 1. INTRODUCTION ... This paper assumes knowledge of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [2] and the Telnet Protocol [3]. These documents are contained in the ARPA-Internet protocol handbook [1]. ... REFERENCES [1] Feinler, Elizabeth, "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook", Network Information Center, SRI International, March 1982. [2] Postel, Jon, "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification", RFC 793, DARPA, September 1981. I believe the term "Internet" is first used in MIL-STD-1777, Internet Protocol (IP), and is referred to in MIL-STD-1778, Transmission Control Procotol (TCP). These two protocols are commonly referred to as TCP/IP or (along with FTP, ARP, etc.) as the Internet protocol suite, which is probably why the collection of DoD-sponsored networks are commonly called the Internet. Now that you have some RFC references, will you please shut up? -- Live: Phil Harbison USPS: 3409 Grassfort Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805-5421 Uucp: {clyde,uunet}!madhat!alvitar Bell: 205-881-4317 205-535-2588 205-837-7610x446
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (08/11/87)
In article <244@madhat.UUCP> alvitar@madhat.UUCP (Phil Harbison) writes: > [...] > Brandon may have exaggerated the percentage, but it is true that the old > net.sources was mostly non-source. Of the last 556 articles received at > madhat, only 248 (45%) were source, so 55% of the articles were non- > source. This covers a period of 5 months, so it should average out any > "episodes". I archive most source groups at madhat and I usually glean > the articles in groups of 100. It was not unusual to throw away 70 out > of 100 articles in net.sources. > > > ... clearly the old set-up was producing more sources than the new. > > Brandon is sending out plenty of source; however, quantity is not the > main benefit of a moderated source group. The main benefit is that the > non-source articles now go to another group, so I can choose not to read > them or pay to get them. I can archive everything in comp.sources.misc > (without gleaning) because it is almost 100% source. > But the question seems to be, how many "software packages" where posted then and now? A simple count with no quality measurements would be a great starting point. Are we really getting fewer sources than we used to? I guess that might want to be corrected for increased net traffic too, I dunno. -- Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii