phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (06/14/88)
In article <1577@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: >In article <2350@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: !! I have decided not to post !! any games or picture files to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. ! !This is the worst aspect of a moderated group. ! !It is completely idiotic to restrict games and pictures from the binaries !group. I hope those who wish to post such files find another newsgroup. ! !Let's put the pictures in comp.graphics !and any other "contraband" in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d I think this is a bad decision too, but would rather work around it by creating a "bin" top level distribution. Anyone else interested? -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com
w8sdz@brl-smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (06/14/88)
Let us not forget that Dick is kindly filling in for our regular
moderator while he is on vacation. I'm sure he has his hands full
with just the regular postings, let alone games and picture files.
Instead of flaming him I feel he deserves our thanks for making it
possible for the comp.binaries.ibm.pc postings to continue during our
regular moderator's vacation.
Please save your reactions until Rhaul returns. I'm sure he will review
the decision.
--
Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZbrowning@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Craig Browning) (06/14/88)
In article <8083@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith B. Petersen (WSMR|towson) <w8sdz>) writes: >Please save your reactions until Rhaul returns. I'm sure he will review >the decision. >-- >Keith Petersen >Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA >Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz >GEnie: W8SDZ You're such a nice guy, Keith. But I think a better idea is: Let Rahul return and see the burned smoldering body of Dick Flanagan, and that will make up his mind. Now. :) Just think, if we had only killed Hitler before he got power... a hint of :) Craig P.S. To those who suggest Compuserve, YOU go to Compuserve... why should those of us who don't pay extra for our accounts have to got to the major expense of Compuserve? The truth is that BBS's have all of the utilities and few of the games and pictures, in my calling; all of the utiilities I've liked recently on the net recently I had earlier from BBS's, but none of the pictures and I'd like to see more games in bin; lots of requests for nethack etc. have been posted asking for posting for instance. More seriously, please don't be quick to demand taking away what someone else wants, because next time they might take your thing like binaries. To the issue of anarchy, I can only suggest there seems to be a history of anarchy by choice on the net. REMEMBER many of us opposed a moderator, and we ahould be as little inconvenienced as possible by censorship. I don't support posting to .d with files because civility rules it out, at least until things get too bad, but do try to postpone the takeover of all groups by moderators. I think most moderators are great helps, but there is the mechanism for bad things, and the benifit seems to fall with ineffecient anarchy over censorship... My answer is moderators who delete horribly abusive postings in discussion groups, text in binaries, etc. but let the members censor themselves on what is posted (i.e. If someone posted the same program every week that would be properly censored.) The porblems we had are solved now with the above moderator as he will censor commercial postings and text from bin, we didn't have any problems other than that. Remember, please respect other people's desires. Diversity is the important thing here, every program here is used by probably few people except arc of course. Craig SNAP 3.0 is out; if it's better than 2.2 GET IT. I haven't heard back from the author on posting, Keith have you talked to him? On the ladies archive that still seems to generate mail in this group: I believe the last word is that it is bad, just delete it.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (06/15/88)
In article <22047@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1577@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: >>In article <2350@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: >!! I have decided not to post >!! any games or picture files to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. >! >!This is the worst aspect of a moderated group. >! >!It is completely idiotic to restrict games and pictures from the binaries >!group. I hope those who wish to post such files find another newsgroup. >! >!Let's put the pictures in comp.graphics >!and any other "contraband" in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d > >I think this is a bad decision too, but would rather work around it by >creating a "bin" top level distribution. Anyone else interested? I think that we need a separate bin distribution that is moderated. The chief reason for moderation being to keep the garbage out and to encourage sites like uunet to archive. With the excellent job that Rick is doing at uunet if I had to *pay* to down load a feed I probably wouldn't take *any* sources groups. I would simply grab the archive index on a periodic basis and download *what* I want. I got a copy of the uunet's index last week. Somewhere around 4000 files just waiting to be downloaded. I can grab virtually *any* comp.source.unix file that's *ever* been posted with patches, within the next ten minutes if I want to. And at fairly low cost using a Trailblazer. If people are looking for ways to reduce volume this works well. Just try and get your favourite news group archived at a site you can FTP from. Then just don't take it anymore. Just get an index to the archive and download directly as you need it. You don't even need to have a direct connection to uunet. As long you know someone who does who is willing to grab it for you if you pay for the call. Personally I think that sites like uunet will be the only thing that keeps the net from collasping. Support your local pay as you go site! -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (06/15/88)
Craig Browning (browning@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP) writes: > P.S. To those who suggest Compuserve, YOU go to Compuserve... I have an account on Compuserve. Among other things, I found the new version of ZIP about two weeks before it showed up in comp.binaries.ibm.pc. Also, files "hang around" in the libraries on Compuserve until it's convenient for *me* to get them. They don't just go away in 1-2 weeks. > why should those of us who don't pay extra for our accounts have to > got to the major expense of Compuserve? The answer to this one's simple. The reason why people should be asked to pay their own way is so simple that this early in the morning I can't find words simpler than that to explain it. I use a *FREE* program written by Compuserve members to access the forums and download libraries. It is set up to automate things so that all of the human "think time" is done off-line. Since 1200 and 2400 bps cost the same, dumping everything I'm interested in takes a very short amount of time. The program I use is called AUTOSIG or ATO. Another exists that I know little about, called TAPCIS which seems to do about the same thing. > The truth is that BBS's have all of the utilities and few of the > games and pictures, in my calling; all of the utiilities I've liked recently > on the net recently I had earlier from BBS's, but none of the pictures and > I'd like to see more games in bin; lots of requests for nethack etc. have > been posted asking for posting for instance. Well, I've already mentioned an example of where I got the new ZIP sooner on Compuserve, so you may be right there. I understand that Compuserve has a *large* number of picture files, with a "forum" devoted to pictures. In the IBM New Users forum libraries, there are games. Since I don't have time to play the half dozen games I already have on my PC, I haven't bothered to even get a directory of the games available, but I've seen discussion of several of them. > More seriously, please don't be quick to demand taking away what someone else > wants, because next time they might take your thing like binaries. Several sites are already looking at whether to continue to carry binaries. By not carrying pictures and games, comp.binaries.ibm.pc will demonstrate that it is worth the communication costs to pass it around. These are costs that you obviously don't pay and are not responsible for. I have been specifically directed by my boss to do everything I can to reduce our phone bills. So far, I've resisted dropping newsgroups. Other sites are not as fortunate as I. > SNAP 3.0 is out; if it's better than 2.2 GET IT. I believe that I've already seen this announced as available on Compuserve. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
browning@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Craig Browning) (06/17/88)
Preface: Ron, I feel your earlier posting was selfish, saying basically that programs you like should be posted and what many want, pictures or games, shouldn't. IF a good group is found for pics, you'll grudgingly allow it, but if not too bad, that group can just lose out and shut up. My posting mentioned that your utilities [disclaimer: they're my favorite also] are easily available faster on BBS's; so the person who said find them somewhere else should follow his own advice. The pictures especially, and games, are less available in my calling, and this is a wonderful forum for them. While I'm not offering a solution to high traffic, I don't feel the answer is selfishness, and if it were let the utilities people including me drop their postings, and go use BBS's; Compuserve is expensive, I used to use it [72747,1012 is still active] but while your suggestions on lowering costs are helpful to do that simple transfer time and [you didn't mention] getting current listings of all of the files costs a lot of money. Finally, please use e-mail for initial replies so people don't bang out arguments over the net but can correct each other's statements, then post summaries. In article <170@falkor.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >Craig Browning (browning@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP) writes: >> P.S. To those who suggest Compuserve, YOU go to Compuserve... >I have an account on Compuserve. Among other things, I found the new version >of ZIP about two weeks before it showed up in comp.binaries.ibm.pc. Also, >files "hang around" in the libraries on Compuserve until it's convenient for >*me* to get them. They don't just go away in 1-2 weeks. We agree then! BBS's also get things first... >> why should those of us who don't pay extra for our accounts have to >> got to the major expense of Compuserve? >The answer to this one's simple. The reason why people should be asked >to pay their own way is so simple that this early in the morning I can't >find words simpler than that to explain it. Then why didn't you? You only explained how to minimize the disaster. >I use a *FREE* program written >by Compuserve members to access the forums and download libraries. It is >set up to automate things so that all of the human "think time" is done >off-line. Since 1200 and 2400 bps cost the same, dumping everything I'm >interested in takes a very short amount of time. The program I use is >called AUTOSIG or ATO. Another exists that I know little about, called >TAPCIS which seems to do about the same thing. > >> The truth is that BBS's have all of the utilities and few of the >> games and pictures, in my calling; all of the utiilities I've liked recently >> on the net recently I had earlier from BBS's, but none of the pictures and >> I'd like to see more games in bin; lots of requests for nethack etc. have >> been posted asking for posting for instance. >Well, I've already mentioned an example of where I got the new ZIP sooner >on Compuserve, so you may be right there. I understand that Compuserve ^I like this guy.:) >has a *large* number of picture files, with a "forum" devoted to pictures. >In the IBM New Users forum libraries, there are games. Since I don't have >time to play the half dozen games I already have on my PC, I haven't bothered >to even get a directory of the games available, but I've seen discussion of >several of them. The giveaway: 1) the selection is terrible unlike utilities (pictures are there though); 2) you don't answer the fact it would cost us a LOT to get the pictures on compuserve, and as I said they aren't very available on free BSS's. 3) You don't like or play games apparently! Surprise at your position then! 4) Sorry for this flaming but ON THIS ISSUE I feel you're not respecting other people's desires. >> More seriously, please don't be quick to demand taking away what someone else >> wants, because next time they might take your thing like binaries. >Several sites are already looking at whether to continue to carry binaries. >By not carrying pictures and games, comp.binaries.ibm.pc will demonstrate >that it is worth the communication costs to pass it around. These are costs >that you obviously don't pay and are not responsible for. Wrong! We are a major backbone, and pay through fees, taxes, or whatever for this stuff, and distibute it to many people. I don't think we'll be dropping UCBJADE like AT&T dropped theirs. In my posting I said we don't pay EXTRA which means we don't get a seperate net bill, we do pay though even though we wouldn't get a refund of anything if we didn't have the net; after all it's not dollars we're spending but machines. >I have been >specifically directed by my boss to do everything I can to reduce our phone >bills. So far, I've resisted dropping newsgroups. Other sites are not as >fortunate as I. Sounds Darwinian... should the net be limited to it's weakest link? Once again I would say you're choosing a selfish solution; just because you only want utilities, you'd sooner see all picture and games people lose their files than see your one site lose all pc binaries. Perhaps we should seperate the types of pc binaries, or at least make comp.pics comp.binaries.pics, to let sites choose which groups they want; our site for instance will distribute all groups but smaller sites can get what they want, so you could refuse 'pics'. >> SNAP 3.0 is out; if it's better than 2.2 GET IT. >I believe that I've already seen this announced as available on Compuserve. Ha, case in point, I just got version 3.1from a bulletin board!! I'll post it probably, though a letter to the author got no response; but he gives permission in the docs. It's fantastic. I'm waiting to see what Keith Peterson does though; he seems to have contact with the author or some plans for posting. Keith, do you know what the 3.1 mods are? The docs only mention 3.0. >Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix >"Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death) You do good services to the net which are appreciated Ron... Craig
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (06/17/88)
In article <170@falkor.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >Craig Browning (browning@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP) writes: >> P.S. To those who suggest Compuserve, YOU go to Compuserve... >I have an account on Compuserve. Among other things, I found the new version >of ZIP about two weeks before it showed up in comp.binaries.ibm.pc. Also, >files "hang around" in the libraries on Compuserve until it's convenient for >*me* to get them. They don't just go away in 1-2 weeks. I think there is something being overlooked here. There are actually people who use PCs at work for work. Like me. We already use USENET for many other things. It is much more efficient of my time to get PC files off USENET than it would be to go to Compuserve. I don't have to worry about spending hours to download something to see if it is useful. I transfer it via 10 megabit per second Ethernet down to my PC and can use it immediately, without losing my train of thought or being interrupted. Also the billing is more convenient. We just pay the phone company and or UUNET one bill. The archiving is a lack of USENET but perhaps we should ask UUNET to perform this service. -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com
wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (06/17/88)
Look, I'm tired of hearing this garbage. You want pics? Call the Shadowland
BBS, (814) 238-4654, 3/12/2400 baud. They've got plenty. You want games?
Call the Entity, (814) 234-2971, 3/12/2400 baud. Plenty of games. Have you
got internet access? FTP to grape.ecs.clarkson.edu. Look in directory
graphics, and readmac. grape is also a BBS, but I don't remember the number
right now. If you're on Fidonet, you can request all these files from 263/41
(the Shadowland), grape is also on Fido, in 260/, but I don't remember what
node...
Anyway... in my experience, there are PLENTY of graphics and games on BBS's.
So there's no reason at all for the net to carry the burden of them.
I HAVE noticed, however, that the net is a great supply area for BBS's.
Sysops who have net access get the best utilities quickly. Users who have
net access upload the utilities they find. I'm sure people would be glad
to complain about this: "Hey, they're not even paying for a feed! Someone
else is paying for them!"
Oh well, time to stop babbling.
--
Bitnet: wcf@psuhcx.bitnet Bill Fenner | "How can we dance
Internet: wcf@hcx.psu.edu | When the beds are burning"
UUCP: {gatech,cmcl2,rutgers}!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf |
Fido: Sysop at 263/42 | Now wait a second . . .heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (06/17/88)
Craig Browning (browning@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP) writes: > Preface: Ron, I feel your earlier posting was selfish, saying basically that > programs you like should be posted and what many want, pictures or games, > shouldn't. IF a good group is found for pics, you'll grudgingly allow it, but > if not too bad, that group can just lose out and shut up. I didn't mean to appear selfish about it. Although I find many of the executables posted to the net useful, I wouldn't be heartbroken if the backbone decided that it just wasn't worth the effort. You may have noticed that AT&T has decided not to import pc binaries into the AT&T domain, due to fears of trojan horses and such. Many others have been questioning the cost/benefit ratio for some time. I don't really think a good group can be found for pics and don't recall having brought up the subject of a new group for them, although some have. I think it's a dumb idea. I think it would *have* to go under "rec". My site would not accept it or pass it. I think many other sites would do the same. > and [you didn't mention] getting current listings of all of the files costs a > lot of money. I dispute this statement. Many of the libraries on Cserve are small. They tend to have related files in libraries together. For example, one library will have files related to MS-DOS communication software. From what I've seen, the really big libraries (at least in the well-run fora) have a file in .ARC format that contains the full description directory for the library. Often, update files exist, so by downloading a few K, you can find out about all the files that are new within the last 4 weeks (or so). > >The reason why people should be asked > >to pay their own way is so simple that this early in the morning I can't > >find words simpler than that to explain it. > > Then why didn't you? You only explained how to minimize the disaster. Oh, ok. People should pay their own way because if they don't, then the people who *are* paying will get sick of it and take more drastic action than they otherwise might have. A possible scenario is the cutting of *all* binary groups because of the expense of transporting games. Most businesses on the net have no problem helping people get tools to help them get their job done. Many *do* object to paying a lot of money in phone bills, etc. to help people be entertained. > 2) you don't answer the fact it would cost us a LOT to get the > pictures on compuserve, See above on paying your own way. > 3) You don't like or play games apparently! Surprise at your position then! I like to just fine. I've bought a few in my time. I think the net as a whole is prepared to see an end to game postings and an increase in postings that say something like: "Send me $5 and I'll send you a floppy with the latest version of Nethack." > 4) Sorry for this flaming but ON THIS ISSUE I feel you're not respecting other > people's desires. I guess I'm not respecting their desires as much as I'm respecting those of the people paying the bills. > >that you obviously don't pay and are not responsible for. > Wrong! We are a major backbone, and pay through fees, taxes, or whatever for > this stuff, and distibute it to many people. I don't think we'll be dropping > UCBJADE like AT&T dropped theirs. In my posting I said we don't pay EXTRA > which means we don't get a seperate net bill, we do pay though even though we > wouldn't get a refund of anything if we didn't have the net; after all it's > not dollars we're spending but machines. As I said in the article to which you followed up, my boss has asked me to cut costs. This makes me personally responsible for the amount of money that comes out of *HIS* budget for telecommunications and disk drives. RIGHT NOW, we need to buy a news 390Meg ESDI disk drive. If I weren't using something like 150Meg for current news and sources archives (for the convenience of others), we could buy a much cheaper drive. If we don't pay money for other people to be entertained, there's more money in the budget to buy a new cpu board to better enable me to support my customers and generate additional business for my company. It's not just the costs. It's the *opportunity* costs. > Sounds Darwinian... should the net be limited to it's weakest link? Once again > I would say you're choosing a selfish solution; just because you only want > utilities, you'd sooner see all picture and games people lose their files than > see your one site lose all pc binaries. I didn't mean to imply that it was just my site. I meant to imply that it was *many* sites. > Perhaps we should seperate the types > of pc binaries, or at least make comp.pics comp.binaries.pics, to let sites > choose which groups they want; That would have to be something more like rec.pics. Likewise, maybe we should have rec.games.msdos, rec.games.mac, etc. It seems to fit better. > You do good services to the net which are appreciated Ron... Thanks. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
dan@maccs.UUCP (Dan Trottier) (06/19/88)
In article <1796@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <22047@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >>In article <1577@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: >>! >>!Let's put the pictures in comp.graphics >>!and any other "contraband" in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d >> >>I think this is a bad decision too, but would rather work around it by >>creating a "bin" top level distribution. Anyone else interested? > >I think that we need a separate bin distribution that is moderated. The >chief reason for moderation being to keep the garbage out and to encourage >sites like uunet to archive. Perhaps what is needed is a seperate network of archiver sites both for sources and binaries. If you wanted to distribute software you would have to submit it to a moderator on the archive network. If accepted the software would then be circulated to the other archiver sites. People wanting the software would have to FTP or UUCP it to their machines. Of course there would have to be a newsgroup on the regular network where the moderators would post information about new software available on the archive servers. For those people who complain about needing to try the software before they decide if it any good I suggest that word of mouth is generally sufficient. If not how about a newsgroup comp.software.opinions or something like that. Personally I feel that binary and source groups for non Unix machines - are there any? - should be circulated on a seperate network - where's my asbestos suit! - I'm thinking about the Amigas, Ataris, MS DOS and other single user non Unix based machines. If we - The USENET - are going to support electronic mail messaging for anyone who can buy a PC (Personal computer of any kind) and plug into the system then we had better start thinking of ways to recover costs. I don't think the mandate of USENET was to provide electronic mail to every household in the known world! A time will come when these services are widely available from companies specializing in this area. To some extent it already has with COMPUSERVE, Envoy and others. Maybe it's time for USENET to go back to its original mandate which was to foster a community feeling amongst Unix users and help share ideas and solutions. Actually I don't think there was an original mandate but I believe this comes close to the intention of its creators. > >With the excellent job that Rick is doing at uunet if I had to *pay* to down >load a feed I probably wouldn't take *any* sources groups. I would simply >grab the archive index on a periodic basis and download *what* I want. Yes I agree. > >Personally I think that sites like uunet will be the only thing that keeps >the net from collasping. Support your local pay as you go site! Well I'm not so sure about this but they do make things so much smoother. dan -- A.I. - is a three toed sloth! | ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!dan -- Official scrabble players dictionary -- | dan@mcmaster.BITNET
doug@isishq.math.waterloo.edu (Doug Thompson) (09/24/88)
dan@maccs.UUCP (Dan Trottier) writes: >Personally I feel that binary and source groups for non Unix machines - >are there any? - should be circulated on a seperate network where's my >asbestos suit! - I'm thinking about the Amigas, Ataris, MS DOS and other >single user non Unix based machines. If we - The USENET - are going to >support electronic mail messaging for anyone who can buy a PC (Personal >computer of any kind) and plug into the system then we had better start >thinking of ways to recover costs. I don't think the mandate of USENET >was to provide electronic mail to every household in the known world! UUCP mail and news software is now running on hundreds of IBM PC compatible micros under DOS, quite aside from the Xenix boxes. The hundreds could potentially become thousands. So the question you raise about "mail to every household" is quite relevant and will (whether we like it or not) become an issue that has to be addressed by the Usenet community. This message is being entered at the console of isishq. Isishq is an 80286 based IBM clone. It runs "ufgate" under DOS 3.21 for a couple of hours a day in a uucp protocol g link. It has two modems and in each of two DoubleDOS <tm> partitions runs a dial-up BBS. Users can read news, post news, send and receive mail while logged on. In addition, "point" software I've written allows users to install a series of programs on their own DOS PC which turn their box into a downstream uucp node, such that they can get news and mail feeds from isishq. From the end-user's point of view, this is technology which *can* provide electronic mail to every household in the world. From the "net" point of view, this sort of software increases the potential number of participants quite significantly. That could, in time, present a number of challenges to the net >A time will come when these services are widely available from companies >specializing in this area. To some extent it already has with COMPUSERVE, >Envoy and others. E-mail is available from Envoy if you're rich. Conferencing is not. Indeed it is pretty hard to figure out how to make money from conferencing. Neither Compu$erve nor Envoy offer a service which is remotely comparable to Usenet or Fidonet. I've studied the "marginal costs" of providing e-mail services to users around the world. Inlcuded in the calculations are real long distance costs using existing Trailblazer modem technology. Assuming direct phone calls placed to Australia from Waterloo for each message, the cost of data transmission is about $2/100Kb - or 1 or 2 cents to send an average sized news article or e-mail message - to Australia. When you consider that commerical e-mail services charge anywhere from 25 cents to several dollars for an e-mail message within North America, you can see that the mark-up is pretty substantial. For Usenet systems, from tiny ones such as mine to giant ones like watmath to charge the user the *marginal* cost of carrying the message plus a 200% markup would result in a system capable of providing e-mail to every household in the known world. Given the volume that can be carried by two modems on one 80286 box, this price structure would more than pay for the administration and capital costs of such a system, and provide every household in the world with the capability of sending e-mail to any other household in the world for less than 1 cent per message. When I look at those numbers (and I could be off by a factor of 10 and it doesn't much matter) and I look at Compu$erve and Envoy, I ask one question: Why? Why should we, the people, pay them a fortune to do what we can do for ourselves for a pittance, with our own desktop computers and our own modems? >Maybe it's time for USENET to go back to its original mandate which was >to foster a community feeling amongst Unix users and help share ideas >and solutions. Actually I don't think there was an original mandate but >I believe this comes close to the intention of its creators. Sure, a technical "unixnet" makes a great deal of sense, as does a technical "dosnet". Generally we accomplish this by splitting up discussions into newsgroups. No system *has* to carry a newsgroup of no interest to its users. Any system that carries a newsgroup for another system should not feel badly about asking that other system to share the financial burden. Usenet news is much more than just technical discussion, although the technical material is arguably the most valuable. More and more people who are not "tekkies" are using conferencing to share ideas and organize activities on a global scale. Cheap world-wide conferencing has a huge potential social impact. Educators and environmentalists, social justice activists and student journalists (to name just a few) are using the network to shatter international barriers and prejudices, share information, and organize globally. What commerical system could mobilize the connectivity and economies available in Usenet today? Why not sell surplus CPU cycles overnight to the "net", why not have the computer make money while you sleep? Make money you ask? Sure. Usenet has the technical capacity to eventually provide e-mail and conferencing to every household in the known world for a trivial cost, and permit every machine owner in the net to not only recoup the costs of doing so, but make a few bucks on the side, while providing an invaluable service to the entire human race. In general the value of computer conferences is directly proportional to the number of participants (assuming adequate moderation). To a very large extent our investment in Usenet links is rendered *more* valuable as the net grows. Not only can we reach more people by e-mail, but conferences are enriched by having more sources of ideas and experience. The variety increases, which also increases the value. >> >>With the excellent job that Rick is doing at uunet if I had to *pay* to down >>load a feed I probably wouldn't take *any* sources groups. I would simply >>grab the archive index on a periodic basis and download *what I want. > >Yes I agree. >> >>Personally I think that sites like uunet will be the only thing that keeps >>the net from collasping. Support your local pay as you go site! >Well I'm not so sure about this but they do make things so much smoother. > Sure, why not? Why shouldn't those who benefit share the cost? The cost is trivial! Having a many users logged on for an hour or more a day is not trivial. Feeding another Usenet site a few newsgroups on a fast modem is pretty trivial . . . given you can do that with a $5000 286 box. The total cost (including hardware and operator time) involved in using automated software on PC clones is probably hugely less than doing the same job with a Vax. (I don't know a lot about Vax economics, i.e. cost per user/hour or cost per kilobyte transferred overall). I do know a lot about clone economics. With one 286 box and the end-point software I've written I can serve 300 users modest volumes of personal mail and 10 newsgroups each, with two connects per day per user. The system requires very little maintenance and one person could easily maintain 100 such systems. That's service to 30000 users for the cost of $500,000 in hardware and one staff position. That's $17 per user for the capital, $1 per year per user for the staff time. Makes Compu$erve look downright pricey! And there are probably much cheaper ways to do it that I haven't thought of. Bill the user 1 cent per message for telecom costs and you cover your phone bill with a very tidy profit! The software exists. I'm running it. Some of it I even wrote. The rest is PD or shareware. The question may not be, "can we (Usenet) afford to extend access to every household in the world?". The question may be, "Can we afford not to?" Basically, the cat is out of the bag. Using uucp mail and news conventions, micro-computers are coming on-line. As we move from the first generation of PC Usenet software into the second generation, it will be a lot easier (and smoother). Given the sort of economies outlined above (which are based on real-world demonstration projects) people will link up to Usenet in increasing numbers. This will present some challenges to the net. Like most challenges it also presents tremendous opportunities. The sign on Macdonalds' restaurant reads "42 billion served". I do hope one day my log-on screen can read: "8 billion served". I can't for the life of me see any reason why *not*. The issues to be addressed that I can see right now involve three things: 1. Economics, a viable billing system for network services rendered, 2. Newsgroup control when participation becomes vast, 3. Network management and administration; And perhaps a fourth: fear. I am certainly aware that the system operating here on my box would not be possible without a huge array of PD and shareware programs representing a vast amount of work by thousands of programmers. To that pile I have added but a tiny little bit. But the result of all those thousands of man-years of effort (much of it volunteer) when combined with cheap, ubiquitous PCs and fast modems is the basic technical capacity to connect every household in the known world for staggeringly low prices. Access to Usenet and FidoNet has transformed my life. It has allowed me to make friends in dozens of countries, and exposed me to ideas and concepts which I would not have encountered otherwise. It has allowed me to participate, if only a little, in an amazing coterie of public-spirited programmers offering their intellectual property to their fellow-men for a pittance, or for free. Even if it could be demonstrated that it were a good thing to place limits to the growth of this phenomenon, I do not think you could actually do it. Limit it to Unix you could. Next year Xenix will be called Unix. More and more PCs are running Xenix all the time, and with the new generation of 386 boxes, unix may become the PC standard. DOS represents our teething stage. 386 Boxes tend to dissolve many of the distinctions between minis and micros, and with steadily declining prices, we are going to witness Vax 1170 power in desktop home computers in this generation. Think about it. A laptop Vax with gigabytes of disk space. This is not science fiction. Such are being planned for. One day *you* will probably wake up one Christmas morning to find one under the tree! I think that the option of going back to what Usenet was n years ago is not open to us. The future holds something quite different; truly universal (or at least planetary) connectivity to e-mail and conferencing, and any other data-transmission that can be digitized. And yeah, it'll probably be pay as you go. But at a penny a message, who needs Compu$erve. We have built/are building something profoundly more significant! When ISDN lines allow us to replace our slow 14000 BAUD modems with 64000 BAUD data channels, the marginal cost of transmission may disappear altogether. Like the roads, the gov'ts of the worlds <sic> may end up providing the conduit and letting anyone use it. At 1 1/100 of a cent per message is it worth keeping count? Charge him $10 per year and call it square! Thanks, Dan, for your thought-provoking article. You're right, we had better start thinking of ways of recovering costs! Regards, =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug Internet: doug@isishq.math.waterloo.edu