taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (02/24/87)
Well, I've been really in the thick of things with this discussion
about copyrights on software, netnews software distribution
mechanisms, backbone topology, and a few other 'keywords'. It's
proven, as always, to be mildly interesting, but for reasons I'll
outline below, I'm withdrawing from the discussion.
1. I've reread what I originally posted and my response, and noticed a
few errors in my thinking. (or should I say some incorrect assumptions?)
2. I've received a couple of highly informative email messages about what
was posted to this and other groups and how they relate to 'the rest of
the world'.
3. The old-standards are being dragged out again, and I have very little
stomach for either hearing them again or being publicly attacked on
USENET. As I'd say if I were in person: "Hey! I don't need this!"
I hope no-one is too disturbed...
While I'm here, though, I would like to point out a few interesting things
about the conversation itself that are indicative of the fundamental problems
of the net...
The first major thing I noticed is that the people who I accused of 'being
in power' never refuted that, and also never refuted that the net is NOT an
anarchy (or anything even resembling that), but instead got quite defensive
and dragged out the "if you can do better..." and the "we get such grief..".
While I am certainly aware of the plight (after all, I *am* on a backbone,
am on the backbone mailing list, the moderators mailing list, "usenet@hplabs"
and so on, something which, in the rush to shore up the defenses, these people
have seemed to forgotten) they are talking about, I think that it was NO
EXCUSE or justification for the rudeness that I read in the replies to my
postings. I will especially mention Larry Wall, who is obviously quite a
bit less of a 'professional' than I originally thought.
The second interesting thing was that the interesting, factual, and
informative messages I got were from people who sent them via email,
whereas the stuff posted to the net tended much more strongly to the
offensive/opinionated material that the net is (in)famous for...
Third, I've noticed an interesting trend in the way that discussions
on the net are replied to. Sorta like:
Person A says "statement-of-position. example to back it up"
Person B says "> example to back it up. Are you joking? <etc>"
where we've lost the original statements of position, and the original
points that the author (me) was/were trying to make.
In the headlong rush to be the first to attack the example, almost everyone
seems to have forgotten the points that they were examples OF. Most
disturbing and frustrating...
Anyway, suffice to say that the USENET is a network with a very
characteristic conversational style between the participants, and I
don't feel that my level of interest in the discussion rates my being
a participant at this time.
-- Dave Taylor --
ps: flames and followups will NOT be read, and email will probably
not be answered...sorry...