webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/03/87)
In article <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >Of > >course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to > >make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would > >be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty. This would yield > >a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues > >of the old Usenet. Of course, as always, connectivity would be a > >problem. > > My initial reaction was to ignore the message. But I'll play Devil's > advocate. > > Let me try to understand your "WEBBERnews" scheme. Actually, what you wrote seems to be more your pipe dream than mine. Let us give credit where it is due and call your version BARNETTnews. > Now you tell me: > I have to maintain two different news facilities simultaneously. > This means duplicate spool directories, executables, news readers, etc. > Twice as much work, plus potentially twice as much disk space, etc. Hmmm. Your system doesn't sound very well thought out. Let us start with a basic. As long as two systems understand the same format, they can share data. It looks like WEBBERnews would run optimally when a bit more data was available than the current system tracks, but there are reasonable ways of handling being stuck with neighbors that insist on using BARNETTnews. > My Reaction: > Well, that is a lot of extra work. But the gods say it must be > worth it. Yeah. But people liked the name BARNETT, what can I say? > You tell me: > No articles from USENET appear in WEBBERnews. Why on earth would I tell you any thing as silly as that. Am I pulling your leg or something? The contents of articles is a constant for any system. There is nothing in the USENET headers that is so obnoxious that it contaminates the rest of the message. > My Reaction: > Well, it would be faster if there were no articles. > By the way, how did you test out WEBBERnews? How long have you > been using it and under what conditions have you tested it? (assuming > there is no compatibility with Rev B news) Oh, I see. You > haven't *really* tested it. Ah, you only use tested software. That explains why it took so long for your site to get on the net. Then again perhaps you have the impression that it is better to implement code first and then see if anyone is interested in it rather than try and find out why people are not already using something similar. Incidently, so far all I have been able to determine is that no one previously had looked at the idea in much detail. > You tell me: > No article in WEBBERnews appears in USENET. Now posting into USENET from WEBBERnews is easy (although who knows what bizzareness I will encounter with your BARNETTnews system). > My Reaction: > Okay - let me get this straight. We have these two different > bulletin board systems, each with different newsgroups, > conversation chains, kill files, etc. I would need two > different news readers, archivers, etc. Everyone is using the > old system, and *magically* everyone starts using WEBBERnews, > because there are no articles posted. > > I think I am lost already. I thought so much earlier. Why would one want to use different newsgroups etc? From a technical point of view, it doesn't matter what the net carries. Any group under WEBBERnews would make sense under traditional USENET instead. Oddly enough, if enough sites were running WEBBERnews, the remaining sites would also benefit even before they converted. > You tell me: > The two news systems are incompatible. That is - they store news > in different formats, reside in different directories, use > different means of receiving/sending news, keep track of duplicate > articles using different systems. Therefore we need two different > sets of inews, mail forwarding systems, history files, etc. No. They are incompatible : A WEBBERnews site communicating with another WEBBERnews site is more efficient than a WEBBERnews site communicating with an un-updated USENET site. > My Reaction: > Boy! Bob - you must be some hotshot programmer! How many years > did you spend doing this? All my life. I don't waste past experience. > You might tell me: > The good stuff would be posted to both groups. Especially > sources. But since WEBBERnews and USENET are incompatible, this > would mean duplicate copies of all of the large postings. > And since WEBBERnews doesn't have the silly moderated distinction, Actually, the moderation distinction is not a big deal to track. It is just that it doesn't buy a more privilaged position than non-moderated. > it will be bigger and cost more than old Rev B. And I would have > to support BOTH during the conversion. Hmmm. Do you still run version A? Are you some kind of museum site that runs every version of every news system in existance to make it easier to check on backward compatibility or something? > Mr. Webber, I find YOU "quite incomprehensible" Somehow I suspected that. > -- > "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." > -- > Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP) Ah gee, you are too hard on yourself. After all, you knew absolutely nothing about what you were talking about and you still handled the conversation better than the backbone sites. --- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) (07/05/87)
In article <279@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >In article <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, I (Bruce G Barnett) wrote: >> In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> (Bob Webber) writes: >>> [deleted] >> Let me try to understand your "WEBBERnews" scheme. > >Actually, what you wrote seems to be more your pipe dream than mine. >Let us give credit where it is due and call your version BARNETTnews. You should not attack ME. If your ideas are so good, then everyone will see the advantages. Instead, you present some ideas that seem half-baked. I tried to show you what your "fully-baked" news scheme would look like - because I believe you have not thought them out fully. Please - present your ideas! Finish cooking them, to complete the analogy. I am not proposing anything new. I am merely trying to understand you and your views. I would much rather have you say something intelligent, and listen to intelligent critism. The place shouldn't be here, because it's a waste of net resources. Apparently you ignore the criticisms of the admins of the backbone sites, and you are incapable of understanding alternate backbones - which is one of the main improvements of news 2.11 over 2.10.3. Bob, I will do you a favor now. I will enlighten you! To quote you: >>> Of course this [WEBBERnews] is completely different from the >>>`alternative backbone' silliness that I find quite incomprehensible. Okay, *I* will explain it to you. You create your own newsgroups It has some other distribution than world, usa, na You hook up to whomever you want to. *You* pay for the phone bills. I am sorry you find it incomprehensible. If you cannot understand that, you shouldn't be wasting the network's resources with your ideas. Now - please explain to me how your WEBBER news works. So far you have said: >>>Of >>>course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to >>>make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would >>>be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty. This would yield >>>a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues >>>of the old Usenet. >As long as two systems understand the same format, they >can share data. >Why would one want to use different >newsgroups etc? [Implying the newsgroups will be the same] >No. They are incompatible : A WEBBERnews site communicating with >another WEBBERnews site is more efficient than a WEBBERnews site >communicating with an un-updated USENET site. Well, let's see. The advantage of News version C is that it runs faster with other Rev C sites. The advantage of WEBBER news is that it runs faster with other WEBBERnews sites. Rev C news is compatible with the current scheme, which means you upgrade news B to C - replacing one news system for another. The news readers still work. You can follow the same newsgroups with no loss of continuity. Since it is compatible, it has been tested and debugged with the current news system. Also, articles from a Rev C site gets forwarded to a Rev B site, and vice versa. Other than seeing a few strange headers like "Checksum:" - most people won't notice a difference. Apparently, Bob, your definition of compatibility and mine are different. Please explain, IN DETAIL, how WEBBERnews will work. I have my personal opinions of your abilities. But I am willing to admit that I may have misjudged you. The Ball is in your court. Plan your WEBBERnews. Go into detail. Post it to the net. Don't waste the net's resources on half-baked schemes. Don't attack others personally. Instead - prove that you are competent. In simple terms "Put up, or shut up". >--- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) -- Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@nd m>L Mes Mes
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) (07/06/87)
I publicly retract articles 1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP and 1937@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP. I canceled the second article. Bob has posted his proposal. I admit to pre-judging his plan. My criticisms are currently inappropriate. His personality, methods, and the fact that he find the alternate backbone mechanism "incomprehensible" - yet he proposes forming a replacement backbone using his quota distribution scheme caused me to form a personal opinion of Bob Webber, which has not changed. -- Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP)