jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (06/11/88)
In article <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: >I will be extending my offer of sending PICNIX parts to people until the >20th. Instructions are below. > >One person (tellabs5!lash) I was unable to send to. If this person could >contact me, I'll try to work something out. Yesterday AT&T announced that ihnp4, cbosgd and att would be severing all outside links and discontinuing third party mail. ihnp4 has been around since I first started using the net 6 or 7 years ago, I do not welcome it's passing any more than I welcomed the divestiture. But with abuses such as these, I wonder why AT&T provided those machines free of charge for the net for all of these years. With the decision of AT&T to cease being such a major player in the USENET arena I wonder how far DEC, IBM and Sun can be behind. It is time we lined up to receive our punishment for the excesses of the past 5 or 10 years. And in the dieing moments of USENET, as the last insignificant company announces that it too will no longer handle third party mail [ but will willingly SELL you such a service ], there will be this posting Subject: PICNIX parts available by mail and people will still be sending in those requests, having long since forgotten that in it's hayday, USENET could still beat the USMAIL by several days. USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4. From where I am sitting the prognosis is not good. How many hundreds or thousands of systems will now be stranded? And how long before the increased pressure of cummulative cruft on the remaining sites forces those machines to also pass by the wayside? - John.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/12/88)
>Yesterday AT&T announced that ihnp4, cbosgd and att would be severing all >outside links and discontinuing third party mail. ihnp4 has been around >since I first started using the net 6 or 7 years ago, I do not welcome >it's passing any more than I welcomed the divestiture. But with abuses >such as these, I wonder why AT&T provided those machines free of charge >for the net for all of these years. >USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4. From where >I am sitting the prognosis is not good. How many hundreds or thousands >of systems will now be stranded? And how long before the increased >pressure of cummulative cruft on the remaining sites forces those machines >to also pass by the wayside? The death knell for USENET has been rung many times in the past. By myself more than once in the ten years I've been hanging around this place. I've always counted myself lucky when I come in in the morning and USENET is still here. But somehow, almost miraculously, USENET's survived. Not just survived, but prospered. Through the works of many folks -- Rick and Mark and Spaf and all the others over the years -- and through some luck, it's survived. This isn't the first time a change of this size and magnitude has occured, frankly -- the passing of seismo and transfer of power to uunet; or the shift of decvax from major node to sideliner. It's going to hurt. USENET is going to have to accept it and modify itself to survive. It always has in the past, though. I don't see any reason why that can't happen again. There are two main thrusts that I think need to be considered here. Both have been discussed many times in the past, privately, publicly, sometimes heatedly. But it's time to deal with some issues instead of just argue them. o Commercialization of USENET: face it. USENET is ALREADY commercial. Always has been. Public access systems and uunet are not evil forces, they are systems that recognize the needs of the net and its users (remember this, something oft forgot here in the byte patterns: the NET is nothing. What is good for the net is nothing. What matters is what is best for the readers of the net, even if that means tearing it asunder) It's time to stop decrying the "commercialization" of this "last bastion of freedom of the universe" -- the bill has come due, and it should now be obvious to all that USENET is not free, we've just been freeloading. Freeloaders have no rights. A major cornerstone of the future of USENET has to be services like uunet. As AT&T goes, more and more backbones will be forced to follow, as folks try to find other "free" services to feed their habits. And nobody, no combination of backbones, can take up the slack for what AT&T's done. So there will have to be a domino effect here. Uunet is going to be a cornerstone, but I don't think it can do it alone. What will probably have to happen is a new, "commercial" backbone of services like uunet that all talk to each other and handle the connectivity of the network. No company is going to be able to (much less willing to pay for) that anymore at the current size. o Everything for everybody: [excuse me, I need to get out my asbestos crutches for this.....] The other realization that people have to make is that USENET can no longer afford to be everything for everybodt. It is simply TOO BIG. The traffic volume, and the attending E-mail, overwhelms the system, and the system can't cope. It is time to take a close look at USENET and what it ought to be, and then reshape the net to fit that purpose. This will set a number of people adrift. So be it. The net can't support everyone anymore; it's time to realize that and do some rational surgery now rather than have the net die of obesity and lose it for everyone later. I think it is time for USENET to diet. USENET's focus started as, and it a good degree always has been, Unix and computers (more or less in that order). That's what USENET is best at as well. The other stuff, it's nice, as long as you can afford it, but without the computer stuff, USENET wouldn't have ever gotten started. Here's my proposal of cuts. Guaranteed, I'll bet, to piss off everyone in some way or another. But when radical surgery is necessary, these things happen. For USENET to survive, we need to cut: o comp.binaries.all o comp.sources.all, EXCEPT Unix sources. o talk.all o soc.all o rec.all -- maybe keep rec.arts.sf-lovers. o misc.all -- look at case by case. And if, when that's done, we still haven't cut enough, cut the microcomputer groups free. The need is to bring USENET volume back down to tolerable levels -- which I'm somewhat arbitrarily building a cutoff level of a megabyte of news a day. About 1/3 of current levels. This is going to be painful. For me, personally, it's especially painful because if you look closely, I've targetted just about every USENET group that means anything to me. But these are not times to be selfish. These are times of survival. Which I hope sinks in around the net. But I doubt it. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/12/88)
>In article <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: [ lots deleted, not appropriate to my followup ] >USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4. From where >I am sitting the prognosis is not good. How many hundreds or thousands >of systems will now be stranded? And how long before the increased >pressure of cummulative cruft on the remaining sites forces those machines >to also pass by the wayside? What I'd like to air is the "cumulative cruft" suggestion. I was chatting with an email neighbor today and we agreed that the filth level seems to have grown considerably and the discussion quality has slid by a near equal amount. He suggested that it seems to have started with the JJ nonsense and I agreed, but on reflection it seems to have started before that but the avalanche happened right after it. I don't believe that AT&T's withdrawal is sudden or unjustified, and I must agree that the passing of ihnp4 is a wound, but not a mortal blow. I am upset and offended by the decline in use of common courtesy and decent language on the net. Before you hit the button, I spent ten years in the military, so no stranger to foul language, nor am I squeamish about it when it serves a purpose. I think AT&T said 'nuff is enough. If the net was as fascinating as it once was, then maybe their withdrawal of pass-thru mail and news might have been delayed, but it was inevitable. Is anyone else concerned about the steady decline in decorum? Am I just imagining this? Regardless, I know that little can be done, but it doesn't seem to be related to moon phase or anything else that makes people go a little strange from time to time. Just wondering... -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (06/12/88)
Is there any way to formalize Chuq's proposals,and get them acted on
by the net at large? Or should I say the "backbone" at large.. Binary
and noise groups being deleted would reduce overall traffic by at
least 30 percent. Eliminating microcomputer groups should be held off
as long as possible since pc's play an important part in today's
computing environment and are often part of a Unix oriented network.
AT&T's decision to withdraw from Usenet participation is unfortunate
but not a "death blow" to the net. I believe the net still fulfills
it's main purpose (dissemination of information), and will continue to
do so as long as it is kept UNIX oriented.
The net should never have been turned into a "bbs" and when the ax
falls on {rec,soc,talk} _the sooner the better_ .. My apologies to
those who think otherwise , but professional concerns should take
precedence.
Just my opinion,so please treat it as such.. I have no illusions as to
what weight it carries.. Flames are stupid and waste spool space.
inevitable
--
Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677
len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!lenekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (06/12/88)
In article <8545@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >AT&T's decision to withdraw from Usenet participation is unfortunate Please don't blow it out of proportions. AT&T is not withdrawing from Usenet. It's in a transition process to consolidate AT&T's access to Usenet to a small number of gateways, that's all. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (06/12/88)
In article <56228@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: [Much gloominess regarding the passing of ihnp4] >There are two main thrusts that I think need to be considered here. Both have >been discussed many times in the past, privately, publicly, sometimes >heatedly. But it's time to deal with some issues instead of just argue them. > >o Commercialization of USENET: > A major cornerstone of the future of USENET has to be services like uunet. Agreed, except that the cost is too high currently. This is not uunet's fault, the problem is telecomm costs. What this country needs is a good cheap long distance phone system. >o Everything for everybody: [excuse me, I need to get out my asbestos > crutches for this.....] The other realization that people have to make is > that USENET can no longer afford to be everything for everybodt. It is > simply TOO BIG. The traffic volume, and the attending E-mail, overwhelms > the system, and the system can't cope. It is time to take a close look at > USENET and what it ought to be, and then reshape the net to fit that > purpose. > > This will set a number of people adrift. So be it. The net can't support > everyone anymore; it's time to realize that and do some rational surgery > now rather than have the net die of obesity and lose it for everyone later. > > I think it is time for USENET to diet. > > USENET's focus started as, and it a good degree always has been, Unix and > computers (more or less in that order). That's what USENET is best at as > well. The other stuff, it's nice, as long as you can afford it, but > without the computer stuff, USENET wouldn't have ever gotten started. > > Here's my proposal of cuts. Guaranteed, I'll bet, to piss off everyone in > some way or another. But when radical surgery is necessary, these things > happen. For USENET to survive, we need to cut: > > o comp.binaries.all > o comp.sources.all, EXCEPT Unix sources. > o talk.all > o soc.all > o rec.all -- maybe keep rec.arts.sf-lovers. Shouldn't there be a smiley face after this line? > o misc.all -- look at case by case. > > And if, when that's done, we still haven't cut enough, cut the > microcomputer groups free. > >The need is to bring USENET volume back down to tolerable levels -- which >I'm somewhat arbitrarily building a cutoff level of a megabyte of news a >day. About 1/3 of current levels. > >This is going to be painful. For me, personally, it's especially painful >because if you look closely, I've targetted just about every USENET group >that means anything to me. But these are not times to be selfish. These are >times of survival. Which I hope sinks in around the net. But I doubt it. This strikes me as a panic reaction. Why don't we wait and see what impact the disappearance of ihnp4 actually has? Although the Usenet started out as a way for Unix techies to exchange information, it has evolved beyond that. It is (as far as I know) the *only* international communications medium available to the average person. (I mean, how else can you meet people who live on the other side of the planet?) While the exchange of technical information will always be an important part of the net, it shouldn't be the only function. Chuq's approach to the survival of the net represents an attitude which I think is far too prevalent. "The net is strained: we have to reduce the amount of inessential information." Why not try to *improve* the system instead of accepting its deficiencies? C news is a step in this direction: let's get a beta version of it out. (Henry? Geoff? Help!) Before I get flamed too badly, let me say that I realize that there are real constraints on systems out there, in terms of processing capability, disk space, and communication bandwidth. I also realize that there *are* people who are trying to improve things, but the efforts are disjointed and unorganized. Maybe it's time for people who care about the net, the *whole* net and not just the technical groups, to get together and try to solve some of these problems. And before I'm accused of being a Pollyanna, let me toss out a couple of suggestions: 1) Require that each site that accepts a feed to pass the groups it accepts on to at least one other *long-distance* site. (Please think hard about this one before flaming. Darwinism at its purest.) Obviously, this produces far more connectivity than is necessary. The exception would be sites that pay for their feed. And no, I have no idea how this could be enforced, except by the upstream sites cutting off slackers. 2) Store the articles on disk in a compressed (possibly batched or tarred) form. Hack the newsreader software to accomodate it. 3) Get rid of uncompressed transmission for both news and mail. We would probably have to tack on some form of ECC. These are random suggestions. There are undoubtedly difficulties with all of them. Point them out. Try to improve on them. If you have suggestions for methods of improving Usenet, please send them to me by e-mail. I will occasionally post a summmary to the net. Please be specific and realistic. We have to work within the constraints of (soon-to-be-)available technology. Please do *not* suggest killing off newsgroups you don't like, or posters you don't like. Dave Mack
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/13/88)
>>o Commercialization of USENET: >> A major cornerstone of the future of USENET has to be services like uunet. >Agreed, except that the cost is too high currently. This is not uunet's >fault, the problem is telecomm costs. What this country needs is a good >cheap long distance phone system. There's nothing inherently more (or less) expensive about uunet than about the rest of USENET. The only difference is that uunet doesn't allow you the priviledge of (1) hiding the expenses in the budget, or (2) hiding the expenses in someone else's budget by relying on someone else's willingness to fund the net for you. What the country needs (or doesn't need) is immaterial. If you can't afford USENET with the current long distance system; if you can't afford uunet, you should seriously ask yourself if you can afford USENET at all, because someone else on the net is funding part of your cost. And as we're seeing, the bills are coming due. USENET HAS to shift to an "everyone pays their way" mentality to survive. >> o rec.all -- maybe keep rec.arts.sf-lovers. >Shouldn't there be a smiley face after this line? Actually (and this is, I'm sure, controversial) no. Why? SF-Lovers has an extremely large readership across both USENET and Internet. If it were removed from USENET, lots of the burden of SF-L would shift to E-mail links, which doesn't really solve anything. This isn't true of any other rec group. And, in case it wasn't obvious, while I'm arguing for sf-l, note that I haven't said a word about rec.mag.otherrealms. That's not accidental. >This strikes me as a panic reaction. Why don't we wait and see what impact >the disappearance of ihnp4 actually has? Because the lost of at&t isn't a cause, it's a symptom. If the walls don't tumble down with at&t, they may well do it with the next backbone dropout (which WILL happen as folks try to shift their free-net to other willing dupes, only to find out THEY can't afford it anymore, iether....). Or the next. If you get gangrene, you don't wait to see if it'll stop with the toe, or the ankle. You do something before you lose the entire leg -- or the body. >1) Require that each site that accepts a feed to pass the groups it accepts > on to at least one other *long-distance* site. How? There's no administration, no rules, no bylaws. There's no enforcement mechanism. How do you create one? >2) Store the articles on disk in a compressed (possibly batched or tarred) > form. Hack the newsreader software to accomodate it. Disk size is trivial in the problems. Besides, you trade off large amounts of CPU cycles to get the disk savings, and most USENET systems these days don't have spare CPU cycles, either. And then you would have to rewrite the software to accept the new format. Which takes time to design, implement, test and distribute. >3) Get rid of uncompressed transmission for both news and mail. We would > probably have to tack on some form of ECC. See 1. Realisticaly, almost all transmission these days already IS compressed. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
ebh@argon.UUCP (Ed Horch) (06/13/88)
In article <56228@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach):
[Summarizes how various death blows have been dealt to USENET in the
past and discusses possible volume-reduction cuts]
Wasn't the newsgroup reorganization designed to facilitate exactly
this? I always thought that no site was ever obligated to carry any
set or subset of groups, with the lone exception being that a USENET
site was defined as anything that carried news.announce.important.
If overall volume is to be substantially reduced, I would think that
that would be best accomplished by each site reevaluating just what
traffic they want to pass. As the megabytes of flamage regarding the
newsgroup reorganization showed, there really is no way to say that
the entire net will continue to pass {X} and permanently discontinue
passing {Y}. For example:
Like Chuq, I can live without the binaries groups. My opinion as
administrator and financier of this site is that the sources groups
justify the costs associated with them (e.g., this article is being
prepared using Jove). This is a big enough network that I'm sure
there are plenty of sites whose opinion is exactly the reverse of
mine. Even more concrete examples are the "alternative newsgroup
hierarchies", such as unix-pc.*. I consider unix-pc a necessity, but
it is really only carried by a small minority of the entire net.
So, I guess the thesis of all this is that given that the mainstream
USENET volume has become so huge that the removal of a few or even one
backbone site starts this year's death-of-the-net panic, maybe now
it's time to start doing what the newsgroup reorganization made possible.
-Ed Horchamos@taux01.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (06/13/88)
Great news! Does this mean that I can finally catch up on news reading - the first time since the demise of seismo? -- Amos Shapir (My other cpu is a NS32532) National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 amos%taux01@nsc.com 34 48 E / 32 10 N
mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/13/88)
One thing that strikes me about Chuq's proposal is that it proposes a "news" response to a "mail" problem. At&t's announcement doesn't mention news at all; indeed, if they simply cut off the news, there would be no need for the kind of announcement they made. But the announcement specifically refers to the volume of mail passing through ihnp4 as a cause. And given the prevalence of pathalias, inhp4's traffic will visited upon some other site-- REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF NEWS. And that is the important point. If we assume that (a) the mail generated in response to news articles is proportionately small, and (b) that mail volume is more or less an increasing function of network size, then completely deleting the news will have only a stopgap effect. The increasing volume of mail will continue to drive backbone sites off the net. Now, I suspect assumption (a) is probably false. Nevertheless, there is a lack of logical connection between the symptom and the cures proposed. The loss of ihnp4 says a lot about problems in routing and transport and next to nothing about content. C. Wingate
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (06/13/88)
> There's nothing inherently more (or less) expensive about uunet than about > the rest of USENET. The only difference is that uunet doesn't allow you the > priviledge of (1) hiding the expenses in the budget, or (2) hiding the > expenses in someone else's budget by relying on someone else's willingness > to fund the net for you. Actually, I think that in general, uunet is less expensive for most sites (obviously local connections dont count). When you start buying thousands of hours of 800 service, you can get some pretty cheap coast-coast rates. If I could only convince Tynet/Telenet that any additional revenue during the off peak hours should be considered as profit, then you could see some REAL cheap rates. --rick
swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) (06/13/88)
To Dave Mack:
I just wanted to point out that FidoNet is also international. It has
gateways to Europe, Australia, Japan, and maybe even South America (though
I've never seen a message that came from there). Australia is quite active,
but I rarely see messages from Europe, and even less from Japan.
Anyway, just thought I'd let you know that not only USENET is international.
Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU
...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric
"...This spells out freedom, it means nothing to me, as long as there's a PMRC"campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (06/13/88)
In article <2645@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes:
<>USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4.
Not really:
% grep ihnp4 /usr/lib/uucp/paths
gateway think!ihnp4!wcom!gateway!%s
ihnp4 think!ihnp4!%s
ihnp4.att.com think!ihnp4!%s
ilunix think!ihnp4!ilunix!%s
medstar think!ihnp4!wcom!medstar!%s
oberlin think!ihnp4!oberlin!%s
oberlin.edu think!ihnp4!oberlin!%s
ohare think!ihnp4!ohare!%s
wcom think!ihnp4!wcom!%s
% wc -l /usr/lib/uucp/paths
11997
From here, out of nearly twelve thousand paths, only nine paths involve ihnp4;
two of these paths are ihnp4 itself, two are oberlin, and one (ilunix) appears
to be AT&T internal, which will continue to get mail. So, only five sites out
of twelve thousand appear to be affected. I suspect that ihnp4 could have
folded up its tent silently and no one would have noticed.
However, the people that blithely post and mail PC binaries are still dweebs.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/13/88)
Right off the bat: I'm one of the "freeloaders" that Chuq speaks of. I'm running a UNIX-PC in leaf-mode, I receive only the groups that I care about, etc etc. My ideas lean towards a reconfiguration in our way of thinking about Usenet, and how we use it. In article <56228@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > USENET's focus started as, and it a good degree always has been, Unix and > computers (more or less in that order). That's what USENET is best at as > well. The other stuff, it's nice, as long as you can afford it, but > without the computer stuff, USENET wouldn't have ever gotten started. Right. Make USENET a specific set of groups that are tailored to business/hacker *specific* concerns: computers, their operation and maintenance, and things directly related to computers and their operation. Just because all the employees of FooBar, Inc. want rec.nude is no reason to make it part of Usenet. (See below.) > Here's my proposal of cuts. Guaranteed, I'll bet, to piss off everyone in > some way or another. But when radical surgery is necessary, these things > happen. For USENET to survive, we need to cut: Instead of cutting, how about splitting USENET into some subnets. Ie: USENET (COMPNET?) = comp.all. Depending on the intrest, comp.binaries may need to be moved to a seperate net all together. (BINARYNET?) Maybe the micro groups too. Look at all the attention that the RadShack Color Computer mailing list gets. Perhaps USENET and COMPNET. USENET would be everything *but* micro stuff, COMPNET would be micros and their binaries. {RECNET,FUN-NET} = talk,rec,misc ALTNET = alt.all, and other groups that are still likely to piss off employers, big business, and other "morally concerned" organizations. Basically, all of the fringe-people/barely bigger than a mailling list groups would be included. SOCNET = soc.all. Maybe some of the recs, but I doubt it. Ramifications of the above: 1) All of us alt.cyberpunk, alt.left-handed-threads, misc.butane-lighters, etc etc users would not have our "habit" financed by the business folks by default. If FooBar's president really liked the idea of carrying all the subnets, and wished to fund it, then they could do so. If FooBar's president wanted "No Fooling Around" on business machines, then they could just carry USENET. 2) Everything will be in an utter state of chaos for awhile. Some ideas on how to do this within the established news software: lib/news/sys files would be quite simple, actually: (distributions = world, na, usa, etc etc) foobar:(distributions),comp:L: <-- a no-nonsense business near me that only cares about USENET . thwango:(distributions),soc,alt,rec,misc:L: <-- a public access/games computer near me that doesn't cater to computer addicts. skreebonk:(dists.),comp,alt,soc:L: <-- a university near me that wants to trade educationally relevant groups. whifpoof:(dists.),comp,alt,soc,rec,misc,talk:L: <-- a different university near me that wants to trade both for-fun and educationally relevant groups. Splitting up into subnets would make things kind of chaotic for awhile. The coherency of a big usenet like we have now would be missing. Some sites would find it hard to get the groups they want, possibly because their neighbors refused to carry "silly" groups. HOWEVER... The splitting up of groups would improve the groups, I think. Only people with an intrest in the first place would be getting the groups at their site. All of us over in rec.autos.volkswagons.typeIs.karmann. ghia.cabriolets would be able to talk about convertable KG's to our hearts content with constant interruptions from cross-posting madpeople. :-) Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe all the existing folks will be willing to take up the slack, and establish more distributed workloads. Would *everybody* running ihave/sendme make things better? How about an abolishment of the newsfeed concept? Maybe the ihave/sendme stuff would work here. Instead of relying on one machine for my news, I would just make routine calls to all my neighbors, getting whatever news they had that I don't have. Comments? Ideas? Flamage? -- Know Future Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) (06/13/88)
In article <2645@rpp386.UUCP>, jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4. From where > I am sitting the prognosis is not good. How many hundreds or thousands > of systems will now be stranded? And how long before the increased > pressure of cummulative cruft on the remaining sites forces those machines > to also pass by the wayside? I think that rumors of Usenet's death have been, as usual, greatly exaggerated -- not to single jfh out. The ihnp4 node, as well as other backbone nodes, simply helped messages pass *more quickly* due to their central location. Remember when ihnp4 was *the* major backbone node? When it had problems, communications were slowed all over the country (similes to the Illinois central office fire, including location, can be made). But even granting the disappearance of ihnp4, cbosgd, and others to come, it should be recognized that the net is now *larger*. This means it's more distributed, and LESS prone to failure due to one or a dozen backbone sites going away. This brings us to another point: UUNET serves many fine purposes, but if *everyone* were to hook to UUNET, we wouldn't have a network, just a file server. I believe that it's the smaller sites that want Usenet that will continue to keep it alive. I foresee regional backbone sites, perhaps with Trailblazers, that can hook both to UUNET and also to other regional backbones and local feeds. Perhaps the loss of a few major nodes will make the net healthier in the long run. But I don't think that cutting off certain groups, just because they're not UNIX-oriented, will serve the purposes that have kept Usenet going. For example, what do these groups have in common: rec.autos, rec.aviation, rec.bicycles, rec.boats, rec.guns, rec.motorcycles, rec.scuba, rec.skiing, and rec.skydiving? All are presumably "recreational" groups and thereby expendable by some standards, but all ALSO can be of real use in *saving lives* through serious discussion of technique in these disciplines. It may be true by some standards that Usenet has been getting a "free ride" from some sites. But everyone on the net depends on the good will of others: whether it's a feed, some source code, an answer to a question, or just someone else to talk to. That's the beauty of the net. Instead of looking to make every last megabyte pay for itself, perhaps we should remember how much good will we've generated. And the heck with JJ and his ilk. -- David Fiedler {ames,attmail,hplabs,pyramid,ucdavis}!infopro!david USMail: InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220, Rescue CA 95672 Phone: 916/677-5870 "Never believe anything you read on Usenet"
lindsay@dscatl.UUCP (Lindsay Cleveland) (06/13/88)
In article <8545@netsys.UUCP>, len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: > AT&T's decision to withdraw from Usenet participation is unfortunate > but not a "death blow" to the net. I believe the net still fulfills > it's main purpose (dissemination of information), and will continue to > do so ... I realize that "akgua" was not as big a player in the scheme of things as is "ihnp4". However when "akgua" was yanked out of the netnews picture here in the Atlanta (and Southeast) area (was that only a year ago!!), there was a quickly called meeting held at Georgia Tech. Gene Spafford was then the administrator there, and he had come up with a scheme for reconfiguring the sites about to be orphaned. Within just a short time, the Atlanta netnews world was back in a stable state. The main attitude that made it all work was each site realizing that if they would pick up just one or two of the sites being fed by "akgua", all could be well. Along with that was that the various administrators realizing that they were no longer the "novice leaf" people as they were initially, but instead each was now experienced enough to handle feeding two or more other sites. My point is that distributed processing is now with us. We no longer have big centralized data centers with dumb terminals attached. Instead, we have many smaller systems networked together, and netnews is merely a construct on top of that scheme. We do not come to a halt when a node on the network goes down for whatever reason. So exclude me out of the handwringer group. I have positive expectations. Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Cleveland Digital Systems Co. Atlanta, Ga gatech!dscatl!lindsay (404) 497-1902 (U.S. Mail: PO Box 1140, Duluth, GA 30136)
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (06/13/88)
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) wrote:
->I suspect that ihnp4 could have
->folded up its tent silently and no one would have noticed.
True, except that there are many net maxi-zum-dweebs out there who
blindly list ihnp4 in ~/.signature (but, of course, most of these don't
read the news.all groups, so they don't know that ihnp4 is headed for
the history books, where it'll snuggle up next to mit-multics and
oz.ai.mit.edu)
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# {ames,cca,decvax,harvard,lotus,mit-eddie,rochester,soft21}!garp!henryroot@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) (06/13/88)
I guess the question has to be, "Who do we think WE are?" For certain, we
aren't (that is a large number of us) providing tens of thousands of dollars
worth of equipment, hundreds of hours of labor time, and countless other
costs that only a large corporation could provide. The way I see it is very
similar to what happened on satellite TV. For a long time, a home dish owner
could indulge in the best of programming for just the cost of the dish and
receiver. As prices came down (ie, more Joe's jumped on the band wagon) the
potential costs (income NOT realized by the cable industry) soared. It was
inevitable that some type of control or action would have to be taken by the
cable industry. Of course, as many of you are aware, there is now almost
complete scrambling of all services that one would consider worth-while. They
even scramble the network feeds and sporting events.
My point is that with the growth of the net, brought on by such factors as the
push towards Unix in the work place, the power of the PC's, etc., what used to
be a reasonable and absorbable cost for companies such as AT&T has now become
out of hand and a bottomless pit. From what I can see, they are attempting
to reduce their role into a more managable and "profitable" operation. They,
like the rest of us, see Usenet as a valuable resource that has a high return
on investment for the most part. I agree that the noise level has
made a large upswing in just the past few months. And this JJ thing has not
helped to convince managers (like at AT&T) that the net is worth investing
as much in. I have heard that the volume of traffic over JJ was pheonominal.
No doubt this surge in traffic through the AT&T network was the straw that
broke the camels back. It also reminds me of those situations where labor
unions spit at managements statements that they are in financial straights
(when they REALLY are), and strikes, pickets, etc., demanding too much to
the point that management says "to h*#@ with it" and files bankruptcy. Not
only do those unfortunate union members not get their demands, they lose
their jobs. We could be seen as a union demanding more and more processing
of some of these companies with our blind ignorance to whose really paying
for it, and management has thrown in the towel.
There is no simple solution. With the cable satellite industry,
efforts by home dish owners to have Congress ban scrambling, had no effect
and led (in part) to a new communcations act (1986) that made illegal
receiving signals for which one was not authorized. I do not fear such
acts occurring here, but the idea is the same. There is only so much
a profit making entity will take a loss on before upper management says
clean up, or clear out. AT&T has given much to Usenet. But he who giveths
can taketh away, and who are WE to complain?
Mark.
--
Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37130 ___________________________
VOICE: +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 896 4153 | JobSoft
UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!root | Design & Development Co.
FIDO: Mark Bailey at Net/Node 1:116/12 | Murfreesboro, TN USAbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/13/88)
In article <2645@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >I wonder why AT&T provided those machines free of charge >for the net for all of these years. When we talk about the fact that USENET is is now costing around $30,000 per DAY in transmission costs, or around 10 million dollars per year, it should be remembered just who most of that money is paid to. The answer is, the AT&T long distance division. Of course, some of it goes to AT&T competitors, but I expect that's not a big percentage. And that doesn't count the extra mail volume generated by the news. It was suggested, jokingly, at one time, that the net was a conspiracy by AT&T to collect long distance revenue. While that's not true, and the company isn't even that well connected (ie. it is doubtful BTL would do something because it increases the revenue of long lines.) there is some merit in it as a suggestion for AT&T. Of course, perhaps AT&T feels that the same amount of traffic will flow if they cut off mail, in which case, why not? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 "USENET -- the world's least important network."
barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) (06/14/88)
In article <91@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >[...stuff deleted..] I am >upset and offended by the decline in use of common courtesy and decent >language on the net. Before you hit the button, I spent ten years in the >military, so no stranger to foul language, nor am I squeamish about it when >it serves a purpose. I think AT&T said 'nuff is enough. If the net was as >fascinating as it once was, then maybe their withdrawal of pass-thru mail and >news might have been delayed, but it was inevitable. > >Is anyone else concerned about the steady decline in decorum? Am I just >imagining this? Regardless, I know that little can be done, but it doesn't >seem to be related to moon phase or anything else that makes people go a >little strange from time to time. Just wondering... Hear! Hear! Bill. I can not think of any reason why a person who has had some education, and is smarter than a pumpkin seed must resort to foul langauge. True the shock value to one's parents has some merit if you are a pre-teenager, but if you are older than 12 it adds little to the content. e. e. cummings and Lenny Bruce used profanity well, but that was 30 years ago, and their points have been absorbed by society. If you can not make a point using well reasoned and logical arguments calling someone alot of four letter names won't score you points either. Say what you have to say, and give the other person the respect that common decency demands. You may not think much of the other preson, but when you post on the net, you are addressing others who deserve respect. Think about it, what does the addition of that language really add to your posting?? -- Barry S. Berg DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry "Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann "Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/14/88)
I don't want to add to the inevitable din, but Chuq advocates a number of
group cuts. My personal taste agrees with him but let's leave the moderated
groups that have bona-fide moderation, rec.guns, rec.humor.funny. The
traffic volume is relatively low and the content very desirable. By "bona-
fide" I mean moderation whereby someone actually looks at it before it is
approved and sent on.
I do not know if it is so, but it appears to me that rec.music-gaffa is just
rubber stamped and forwarded. Emphasis *I do not know*, Emphasis *it
appears to me*, so I could be very mistaken.
If indeed we must dissolve entire categories, I suggest that the moderated
groups go last.
--
Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!billbill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/14/88)
In article <11929@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu writes: >One thing that strikes me about Chuq's proposal is that it proposes a "news" >response to a "mail" problem. > >At&t's announcement doesn't mention news at all; indeed, if they simply cut >off the news, there would be no need for the kind of announcement they made. >But the announcement specifically refers to the volume of mail passing >through ihnp4 as a cause. And given the prevalence of pathalias, inhp4's >traffic will visited upon some other site-- REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF >NEWS. I agree with Charlie, but there are two points in addition to the ones he makes. AT&T has already curtailed the distribution of news among their internal systems. Some sites are specifically prohibited from getting a news feed. I will discuss (email please) the one's I'm personally aware of. AT&T would injure itself if it isolated itself completely from news. There are business defensible reasons for having it available to the people who can benefit, professionally, by it. That sounds like a contradiction of the first point but I can not comment on the rationale used to decide who was and was not eligible to receive news. Finally, news is a far more efficient method of distributing the volume of general interest communication. It takes advantage of batching and compression, it can be graded to take advantage of time-of-day network usage. It is neither as personal nor as timely as mail, but it is a far more efficient use of network resources. I got the impression that what AT&T said about mail was they would not allow my mail (non-AT&T) to go to Chuq or Charlie (non-AT&T) through the AT&T gateways but I could still correspond with Mark Horton (AT&T) and he with me, without restriction. I find it difficult to object to any company saying "we are now going to curtail the use of our resources to something more related to the benefit of our organization". No, I don't like it either, but it sure sounds reasonable. As was pointed out when the satellite TV programmers scrambled, it's tough to convince someone that paying is a good deal when they were getting it for free. -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill
sherr@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Adam B. Sherr) (06/14/88)
In article <56250@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>> o rec.all -- maybe keep rec.arts.sf-lovers. >>Shouldn't there be a smiley face after this line? > >Actually (and this is, I'm sure, controversial) no. Why? SF-Lovers has an >extremely large readership across both USENET and Internet. If it were >removed from USENET, lots of the burden of SF-L would shift to E-mail links, >which doesn't really solve anything. This isn't true of any other rec group. > >And, in case it wasn't obvious, while I'm arguing for sf-l, note that I >haven't said a word about rec.mag.otherrealms. That's not accidental. > >Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Oh I see, just keep the newsgroups that you like and kill all of the others. Maybe you should delete the binary groups and talk.bizzare which have huge volumes (maybe even rec.humor but this would dissapoint a lot of people) but many of the rec. groups have small, faithful groups of readers. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean the newsgroup is not worth it. __ () / ) / /\ / /--/ __/ __. ______ / ) /_ _ __ __ / (_(_/_(_/|_/ / / <_ /__/__/ /_</_/ (_/ (_ Adam B. Sherr "If Alan Alda can work for IBM, sherr@eniac.seas.upenn.edu there's no reason I can't! (215) 243-8214 -- Dave Becki 4/2/88
sherr@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Adam B. Sherr) (06/14/88)
In article <860@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > >Instead of cutting, how about splitting USENET into some subnets. Ie: > [ TERRIFIC PROPOSAL DELETED ] The first intelligent proposal that I think I have seen. Keeps the most people happy. Avoids all the screaming that will occur in groups like this. >whifpoof:(dists.),comp,alt,soc,rec,misc,talk:L: <-- a different > university near me that wants to trade both for-fun > and educationally relevant groups. I hope this in Penn's format >J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 > ..!bellcore!tness1!/ __ () / ) / /\ / /--/ __/ __. ______ / ) /_ _ __ __ / (_(_/_(_/|_/ / / <_ /__/__/ /_</_/ (_/ (_ Adam B. Sherr "If Alan Alda can work for IBM, sherr@eniac.seas.upenn.edu there's no reason I can't! (215) 243-8214 -- Dave Becki 4/2/88
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (06/14/88)
A long long time ago in an article far far away (<8545@netsys.UUCP> to be exact) len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) said:
-AT&T's decision to withdraw from Usenet participation is unfortunate
-but not a "death blow" to the net. I believe the net still fulfills
-it's main purpose (dissemination of information), and will continue to
-do so as long as it is kept UNIX oriented.
-
You're right, it's not a deathblow. RTFM. To quote from the
original article (original article marked with ='s):
=From: attnews@ihnp4.att.com (Harold Jackson)
=Subject: third party email through AT&T machines to be discontinued
=Message-ID: <1316@cblpf.ATT.COM>
=Date: Fri, 03 Jun 88 07:32:01 PDT
=
=Many of you know ihnp4 as one of the best connected machines on the
=UUCP network. Because it is so well connected, well run, and has smart
=routing software, many people have chosen to send much of their
=electronic mail through ihnp4. This use of ihnp4 as a free mail
=forwarder has reached the point where it is being unfairly overloaded.
=This overload has to be rectified. Management has decided to
=discontinue passing third party email through AT&T machines.
Note what is said here. Third-party email. Not news.
For that matter the announcement doesn't even mention news.
=While we are phasing out third party pass-through as much as possible,
=we will continue to accept email for AT&T machines, and to
=pass outgoing email from AT&T to other systems. cbosgd and ihnp4 will
=go away soon anyway, as they are being replaced by official gateways.
See those last two words? "official gateways." This implies that
to get mail into AT&T you will send to one of these gateways.
Presumably, the same can be done for news. And for many newsgroups,
probably will be.
=Beginning July 1, 1988, all external links to cbosgd and ihnp4 will be
=severed. If you have a connection to ihnp4 or cbosgd, or there is a
=business need to talk to AT&T, you can contact att!postmaster about
=setting up a link to att. Such a link would not allow pass-through
=email.
=
And, in case you missed it above, it's mentioned again. The point
of all this is to reduce pass-through email. Not to say that
they're having problems with news, but what's prompting this
change is the fact that everyone and their brother is using
ihnp4 and cbosgd as routing sites. All they want is to be able
to have only AT&T mail go through AT&T machines. Nothing about
news.
So what does all this mean? It means that uunet, rutgers and other
sites will play a much larger role in distributing and maintaining
newsgroups. And it means you won't be able to go:
mail ihnp4!twilight.zone and expect it to get to wherever you want.
But it's not a deathblow to the net, and there's no reason to do
anything drastic. So take a deep breath, calm down, and start
trying to figure out new paths to non AT&T machines.
--
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
...!{uunet,ihnp4,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR-
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer: Not SCO's opinions. At least not that they've told me.
"Kill the wabbit! Kill the wabbit! Kill the wabbit!"peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (06/14/88)
If it's gangrene, you do need to cut. But do you really need to take the whole leg? Let's try cutting off some feet. (1) NO BINARIES. I'm a reformed binary-poster myself, but I never posted anything big enough to require multiple sections. It's not useful for programmers. I distribute software in binary form on Compuserve now. This includes non-ascii source. (2) NO GAMES. (3) NO DEMOS. If the program doesn't do anything useful, don't ship it. These two should get rid of most of the sources fluff, even in the micro groups, and do we really need Empire or Umoria? (4) Give every group in rec, soc, talk a going over. Flame groups like talk.bizzarre or whatever the evolution group is this week can go. This can be as nasty as necessary. This should cut news down quite a load. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These may be the official opinions of Hackercorp.
rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) (06/14/88)
In article <8545@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >Is there any way to formalize Chuq's proposals,and get them acted on >by the net at large? Or should I say the "backbone" at large.. Binary >and noise groups being deleted would reduce overall traffic by at >least 30 percent. Eliminating microcomputer groups should be held off >as long as possible since pc's play an important part in today's >computing environment and are often part of a Unix oriented network. Over the *USENET*, definately. However, I think that simply eliminating the non-Unix-oriented groups isn't exactly the answer. It's time to do what we've had to do for a long time: develop alternate networks for the various different categories of news. Here at dasys1 (the Big Electric Cat), we plan to keep receving any and all newsgroups we can get our hands on, provided that our users remain interested in reading them. BEC exists primarily for news and mail, and we'll expand resources as necessary to handle them. There are doubtless other sites which will continue to carry all the various categories. Sites wishing to carry non-technical groups might be forced to develop their own network. I don't think there's anything wrong or unreasonable about that. >The net should never have been turned into a "bbs" and when the ax >falls on {rec,soc,talk} _the sooner the better_ .. My apologies to >those who think otherwise , but professional concerns should take >precedence. Depends on your point of view. If your principal concern is keeping your users informed on various topics in the computer world, then it's sensible to only carry the computer-oriented groups. In most cases users don't pay directly for the services they receive through the net. The people who are paying ought to be able to limit access accordingly. Here, and on several other public access sites, the users do pay directly for the services they receive through our net connections (yes, I know, they depend on links between many other sites, but what this system offers is paid for directly by users, and we'll carry any through traffic other sites want to send through us as our 'share'). Their support fees will go toward paying for our share of an alternate hierarchy if one is developed. I'd imagine that many other systems will do the same thing. That's the way it'll eventually be. -- Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator You do it because you're drunk, you're numb, and you just don't care.
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/14/88)
In article <267@mjbtn.UUCP> root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > [ I already stuck in my $.02 so I'll restrict this to clarifying some things in Mark's article. I agree with him, completely, there are some nit picking details that need illumination. All but those deleted ] >similar to what happened on satellite TV. For a long time, a home dish owner >could indulge in the best of programming for just the cost of the dish and Mark makes a much clearer analogy than I did, I didn't figure the price track between satellite receivers (yes, I have one) and PC's (yes I have one). >potential costs (income NOT realized by the cable industry) soared. It was >inevitable that some type of control or action would have to be taken by the >cable industry. The difference here is that the satellite programmers are gouging the dish owner to several multiples of what the cable subscriber pays. AT&T offers, as an alternative, pass through mail via an existing service at existing prices. They aren't making up a new industry or extorting what they can get, they are suggesting an alternative way to do what they now decline to do for free. The analogy isn't perfect, but it is pertinent. > Of course, as many of you are aware, there is now almost >complete scrambling of all services that one would consider worth-while. They >even scramble the network feeds and sporting events. Not entirely, but this is news.admin, not rec.hate.HBO. There's still good stuff up there that isn't scrambled, but there will be no mail passed through AT&T to non-AT&T sites. I'm non-AT&T and I support their decision. >as much in. I have heard that the volume of traffic over JJ was phenominal. >No doubt this surge in traffic through the AT&T network was the straw that >broke the camels back. I'd love to blame it on our profligacy, but this move was in the works long before JJ appeared. Nonetheless, let's blame it on him! :-) >There is no simple solution. With the cable satellite industry, >efforts by home dish owners to have Congress ban scrambling, had no effect >and led (in part) to a new communcations act (1986) that made illegal >receiving signals for which one was not authorized. Here the analogy is near perfect, stings, ouch! The cable industry has clout, the mere voter has none... but this is news.admin. If AT&T says "I want my resources used in a fashion that closer resembles how I want my business to work" then that is a decision made (and enforced) in the traditions this nation was founded on. Mark's union/management (deleted) example applies to this too. There is no political intrigue here, just the conclusion of a free ride. AT&T (unlike our Congress) offers an alternative we can take or leave. >AT&T has given much to Usenet. But he who giveths >can taketh away, and who are WE to complain? Here here! No one should try to diminish the tremendous boost that AT&T has given Usenet. Someone pointed out in this or news.groups, that they didn't say anything about news, just that they won't accept mail for a destination that isn't in their company network. I find that awfully difficult to criticize. I'm not now, nor have ever been affiliated with AT&T. I bought one of their computers and one of their phones, that's it... And yeah, my phone bill's too high too :-) -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill
henrik@blblbl.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (06/14/88)
One should be careful not to trim the fat too much -- I've seen this happen often. The talk.* and rec.* etc. groups foster interest in many people who might otherwise not take an interest in USENET -- while many of these could be the dreaded, freeloading "end users" ;-) a number of them are also people responsible for keeping it going. While it would be nice to see comp.binaries.* go away (I'm tired of dealing with some of the extra traffic) I think drying things up so that all the "fun" things go away would be a mistake and that the USENET would lose a lot of its character. I think as more and more people start having Unix boxes at home the USENET can become more of a "cottage industry" -- there will always be help from the commercial sector, but the great "free rides" of the future will come from people who are running public-access boxes out of their own homes. As to the chameleon-like nature of the net and its ability to deal with the loss of sites like ihnp4 -- much of the credit goes to the USENET administrators of backbone and semi-backbone sites who actually sit down and think out the best connectivity for their little corner of the net - it doesn't happen by accident. larry... PLEEEEASE PEOPLE: *Before* you flame me for being an obnoxious, freeloading enduser -- I read my netnews at home and I speak to 8 other sites (5 of which I exchange news with - 2 of which I am their primary feed), and I pay the phone bills to do this (as well as the electricity).
cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (06/14/88)
> AT&T's decision to withdraw from Usenet participation is unfortunate > but not a "death blow" to the net. I believe the net still fulfills > it's main purpose (dissemination of information), and will continue to > do so as long as it is kept UNIX oriented. > > The net should never have been turned into a "bbs" and when the ax > falls on {rec,soc,talk} _the sooner the better_ .. My apologies to > those who think otherwise, but professional concerns should take > precedence. If your site feels that the {rec,soc,talk} groups are not appropriate for it, then by all means, your site should feel free to not carry them. What I (and presumably others) would object to is the *forced* removal of these groups across the entire net in one fell swoop. The problem is not that the non-comp groups (or non-UNIX groups, for the ultra-purists out there) are "wasting space," it is that there are sysadmins out there who are unwilling to take any actions on their own; sysadmins who for some reason feel they HAVE to carry all the "official" groups on Spaf's list, and who are not willing to drop a group or class of groups unless the entire net drops it. The whole purpose of "the great re-naming" was to make decisions about what to carry and what not to carry easier to make and implement, yet scores of sysadmins choose to ignore this system. By this measure, the change from {net,mod} to {comp,rec,soc,talk...} was a waste of time...the very people the changeover was designed to help are pretending it doesn't exist! There is a vocal subclass of sysadmins on the net who constantly complain about all the difficulties involved in carrying {rec,soc,talk...} but who, even with the tools at their fingertips to solve the problem, would rather have The Backbone come riding in on a white horse and make their decisions for them. I am growing increasingly tired of such people, who haven't got the initiative to take a few simple steps on their own. If some of you want the ax dropped on {rec,soc,talk}, or the binaries groups, or whatever groups you feel are "inappropriate", *then do your part by not carrying them on your machines.* If sites downstream really want the groups they will find another way to get them, and will probably even be understanding of your decision if you let them know a resonable time in advance, explain why, and maybe even give them a hand finding another feed. But crying to the net as a whole and asking (or worse, DEMANDING) that the "offending" groups be taken away from ALL of us is asshole behavior, pure and simple. There are plenty of sites out there that are still willing to carry a full feed...if enough sites decide not to carry {soc.foo} then {soc.foo} will die a natural death, and deservedly so, but dynamiting all but the technical groups and forcing those of us who want the rest of them to rebuild them from scratch would be an amazing abuse of power on the part of the backbone. The net is a community. I assume you also *live* in a community. Do you complain to your city government about the type of people who you invite to your parties? Do you expect your neighborhood association to keep the kinds of people *you personally don't like associating with* from associating with others in your neighborhood? No? Then why do you expect the net as a whole to remove the groups that *you personally* don't want to carry? The decision is *yours*. Don't expect the rest of the world to make it for you. > Just my opinion, so please treat it as such.. I have no illusions as to > what weight it carries.. Flames are stupid and waste spool space. > > -- > Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 Ditto. -- Lazlo Nibble (cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu)
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/14/88)
In article <95@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >I got the impression that what >AT&T said about mail was they would not allow my mail (non-AT&T) to go to >Chuq or Charlie (non-AT&T) through the AT&T gateways but I could still >correspond with Mark Horton (AT&T) and he with me, without restriction. >I find it difficult to object to any company saying "we are now going to >curtail the use of our resources to something more related to the benefit >of our organization". No, I don't like it either, but it sure sounds >reasonable. When I first read the announcement, I thought of flaming AT&T, and making a suggestion on the lines of, "Well, if they refuse to pass our mail, then we should refuse to pass their mail to third parties." Then I realized that AT&T is (semi-officially) sponsoring a major public-access UNIX system which provides most of the connectivity in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and beyond; I am not aware of any other major commercial USENET player doing anything remotely similar. As for AT&T's commercial e-mail service: I tried to obtain information on it a while ago to see if it would functionally replace our EasyLink account; all I got were some slick colorful sheets with a lot of sales hype and not much technical information at all. Maybe Mark Horton or some other AT&T person reading this could make available, on request by e-mail, a comprehensive description of AT&T mail, which answers such questions as "how much does it cost", "what other systems does it gateway to", "what international systems can it reach", "how does one access it from overseas", "what software is required", etc, etc. Another question for Mark Horton or anyone else who knows: with cbosgd being phased out, what is the current address to send uucp map entries to? Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (06/14/88)
In article <94@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: |I don't want to add to the inevitable din, but Chuq advocates a number of |group cuts. My personal taste agrees with him but let's leave the moderated |groups that have bona-fide moderation, rec.guns, rec.humor.funny. But it will be difficult to distinguish between the unmoderated and moderated rec.* groups. Wait! I have an idea! Let's name them mod.humor.funny and mod.guns! :-) -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett
wisner@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (06/15/88)
>Another question for Mark Horton or anyone else who knows: with cbosgd being >phased out, what is the current address to send uucp map entries to? cbosgd hasn't been the proper place for eons now. Use uucpmap@rutgers.edu. -- Bill Wisner ..!{ames,att,decwrl,ihnp4,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!wisner
smv@necis.UUCP (Steve Valentine) (06/15/88)
Look folks, this is getting rediculous! Let's have a moritorium on telling each other how to run the net! If YOU think that YOUR site could/should live without certain groups, fine, blast them locally, and refuse to pass them. If sites downstream from you want them, they can find alternative routes, if not then they truly should be omited. We went through a major newsgroup re-org ostensibly to make this easier. Was that a waste of time? PLEASE STOP SUGGESTING THAT THE NET AS A WHOLE SHOULD DROP HALF THE GROUPS! As people have said about persons who complain about what they see on TV: If you don't like it, change the channel! You newsadmins out there have sys files, USE THEM! Where is it written that the net as a whole has to grant you permission to drop a group?!?! Here at this site, we carry everything we can get, and will continue to do so. Our feed(s) do the same, because they want to as well. We feed two sites, one that wants only a few groups. We send them only those groups that they want. I'm sick and tired of being told that "the net" should drop this or that. The death of USENET will come because we're all blowing hot air about how the net should be run, rather than just quietly running it. When news.admin and news.groups make the top 20 list, there is something wrong! -- Steve Valentine - smv@necis.nec.com NEC Information Systems 1300 Massachusetts Ave., Boxborough, MA 01719 This signature line is blank when you're not looking at it.
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (06/15/88)
Let me try to offer a brief summary on what's going on at AT&T Bell Laboratories regarding Usenet. This is not an official statement by the company, but I was involved in many of the discussions that lead up to the new policy. In a sentence, what triggered all this was that top management (*very* top management) noticed Usenet, and wondered if it was a Bad Thing. Bad Things, in corporate America, are those that cost money, and it's fairly obvious that Usenet has that potential in a lot of ways. There are obvious things like phone costs and disk space; there are less obvious ones like employees reading netnews during work hours. And there was concern about lawsuits -- is AT&T liable for libel? what if someone uses a comp.sources program alleged to be public domain but not really? Etc. After many meetings, reports, task forces, arguments, etc., the company decided to manage netnews. I won't go into all the details about what that means internally, but one decision was to centralize the external newsfeeds. Such machines obviously need to be mail gateways as well; this idea was useful for other reasons, such as providing internal users with high-quality mail service to the outside world. To encourage migration to these gateways, a committment was made to provide official funding and staffing -- netnews and mail is *not* a part-time activity for the administrators of these machines. (That, by the way, is why folks can, should, and will subscribe to commercial email networks: managing connectivity on a large-scale basis is much harder than just sticking a line in the uucp Systems or L.sys file.) The price of official support, though, is official control, and top management did not feel that we should pay for carrying other folks' traffic. This is especially true when you realize that our gateways would then compete with our own commercial service, ATTMAIL. Hence the decision to stop forwarding 3rd-party mail. Note what we're not doing: a) We're not cutting off email contacts to the outside world. b) We're not dropping off of Usenet -- it's officially blessed here, though there may be some deletions from the list of newsgroups carried. (I've personally recommended that as a matter of corporate policy, binary groups be dropped -- the existence of electronic vandals makes such programs too risky to the company. We also don't permit people to bring explosives on-premises.) c) We're also not cutting off internal feeds, at least not as a matter of High Policy. Some local decisions may have been made -- Bell Labs is a big place -- but I can state categorically that that is not Bell Labs-wide policy. A lot of wild rumors have been floating around about this; any time a news feed hiccups, 17 worried postings appear asking if the axe has dropped. d) We're not cutting off our backbone machines without a lot of thought, preparation, and planning. Such a change probably will happen eventually; hence most AT&T machines will be deleted from the external backbone at some point. None of this has to do with JJ or any other single incident; the origins of this go back over a year, with some aspects going back to at least 1982. --Steve Bellovin AT&T Bell Laboratories ulysses!smb
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (06/15/88)
Being the admin of a simple leaf of a leaf of a leaf site, I
usually don't participate in these conversations, but I couldn't
resist this time. It's clear that anything you say in this group
is going to get flamed, so I'm not even going to put in one of those
"please don't flame me..." lines.
I've been reading USENET for a long time, but I've only been running
a node for about 6 months. I realize that my tiny site has little
in common with the big boys, but I'm going to inject my point of view
anyway.
There's been a lot of talk about freeloaders. And at this time, I feel
I'm a freeloader, but not by design. I run a little 286 UNIX box
with 2MB RAM and 32MB dedicated to news; we get a partial feed, a few
hops from a backbone. Our machine is taxed to just chew on the news
we get, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to feed others or do
my part forwarding mail. But it doesn't work that way. Nobody wants
a partial feed, at 2400bps, from a tiny leaf site. And who wants to
route mail through that type of node either? Everybody wants a full
feed at 9600 bps directly from the nearest backbone site.
What I'm trying to say (rather poorly I suppose), is that, is it
possbile for smaller sites (like mine) to relieve any of the burden
from the medium sized and larger sites? I'm willing to use all
the resources I can spare and I believe other sites may be willing
to allocate more resources than they do now. I'm not saying that
sites that are already over-loaded should do more; and I know that
a crumby little 286 is not going to do much, but I'm willing to
do my best with what I have. I have a small company (read myself and
my wife part-time) but I don't want to be a freeloader becuase I
find USENET valuable and I don't want to contribute to its death
if I can help it.
It seems like if the load can be better distributed, there are
resources out there to handle it. One problem now appears that
too much is centralized at too few sites. I may be naive, but
I'm guessing that there are sites that are willing to contribute
more of their resources, within their budgets. I know there
are no controlling bodies, but what if we polled for information
from site admins regarding what resources they are willing to expend
(e.g. how many long distance feeds, or mail routing links). Then
take that pool of resources and rearrange links to lighten the
load on the over-burdened sites and pass it to other sites with
some resources to spare. There's always going to be intentional
freeloading without "official" control, but I still believe that
there are a lot of "unintentional" freeloaders like me out there
that may be able to help the problem.
--
David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.uucp) | "Yea I've got medicine..." as the
Beckemeyer Development Tools | cookie cocks a his Colt, "and if
478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | you don't keep your mouth shut, I'm
UUCP: {unisoft,sun}!hoptoad!bdt!david | gonna give you a big dose of it!"mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (06/15/88)
Chuq and I are usually on the same wavelength, but there are some
fundamental assumptions that I think we disagree on here. First of
all, the realignment of the way AT&T handles external mail is unlikely
to have a significant effect on Usenet at all. Why the AT&T
announcement should have triggered all these doom & gloom
predictions I don't know, particularly since Usenet (news) is not
involved at all and net-wide mail, except to some hangers-on, will also
probably not be affected dramatically either.
My main point, though, is that there is no reason why Usenet cannot
continue to be "everything for everybody" -- the only change may be
that the volume may be such that fewer sites will choose to have FULL
feeds. Some sites, for budgetary or policy reasons, may need to go on
a diet; there is no reason that Usenet as a whole -- and all that
really is is the namespace of netwide groups -- needs to go on a
diet. Why "cut" (which I assume means rmgroup on a netwide basis)
ANYTHING? If people can't afford it, or don't want it, they don't
have to carry it or pass it. That is the way it has always been.
I have always been very careful to avoid making judgments based on the
value of one newsgroup vs. another; comp.risks may contain a much more
refined level of dialogue than talk.bizarre, and may be more
"objectively" useful, but I think the primary purpose of Usenet is to
serve the needs of its (author and reader) participants and what they
(we!) want to post and read, not hew to some magic line of "value ==
technical content".
Withdrawal by major supporters (and this isn't happening with AT&T
anyway) won't kill Usenet; it may make it harder for SOME people at
SOME sites to get feeds. Increased volume won't kill Usenet; it may
make it more difficult to support a full feed at SOME or even MOST
sites and may require site admins to be more selective in carrying
what their Usenet enthusiasts care about. And to answer yet another
article, four-letter words (or sexually-related messages) won't kill
Usenet; it may cause a FEW sites where the Mrs. Grundy faction runs
the show to leave Usenet or curtail their participation.
Let a thousand flowers bloom! Usenet has never been healthier.
Michael C. Berch
News/mail admin
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcbpage@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (06/15/88)
>get rid of talk,soc,rec, sources except unix
It won't happen. It can't happen. Too many people want the groups to
continue. For those groups where "usenet" doesn't want to carry it,
new ones are started up (alt, bionet, gnu, biz, there's more).
How about if Gene took everything but comp.* off the 'official' list?
Would that be enough?
I'm not trying to be flippant, but why can't you just ask your
upstream sites not to send those articles?
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!pagehenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/15/88)
> ... C news is a step in this > direction: let's get a beta version of it out. (Henry? Geoff? Help!) We're working on it. It's been a busy winter... Actually, there is one thing that can be done without software changes, something that would cut traffic quite a bit and simultaneously greatly improve the signal/noise ratio: go 100% moderated. (It's hard to find a moderator for talk.garbage, you say? Perhaps that is a reflection on how desirable the group is...) [Sounds of asbestos suit being donned.] -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (06/15/88)
In article <1091@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <2645@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: ><>USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4. > >However, the people that blithely post and mail PC binaries are still dweebs. Yes. Perhaps more sites should implement a size limit. Currently 64kb seems to be the largest size that will succesfully get through most sites. I know that ubc for example limits messages from off-campus to about 20kb (at least they used, I assume they still do). You can get around this by posting lots of small messages, but I'm sure it wouldn't be to hard to start maintaining a small history file and stop forwarding messages when you see a large number going from the same sender to the same receiver. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
mcglk@scott.stat.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) (06/15/88)
Egads. I'm not going to include some excellent postings here by several people (including Chuq's USENET, INC. spoof, which I thought was excellent), because I don't want to blow several dozen K repeating what you've heard before. Seems like Apocalypse Day around here. First the JJ fiasco (which was fun to watch--for the first two days), and now the inhp4 fiasco (they're only taking a few machines out of mail-handling duty, people). Before that it was the comp.women fiasco (which I support, though I will admit to having reservations about it being in the comp.* hierarchy) and the binaries fiasco, which are both still going on. None of this, of course, means that USENET is dying, or that USENET will need major surgery in order to survive. I agree--with considerable reservations--with Chuq: some of the stuff should go. But first, an alternate means has to be found. I do *not* support the complete lobotomy of the talk.*, rec.* and other "fun" newsgroups, but I *do* support an alternate way of handling binaries and sources. First off, I feel they should be moderated. Second, I do not feel that they should be restricted to one type of machine or OS or language. Third, if one or the other has to go, toss comp.binaries.*. Isn't there anyone willing to put up the time, effort, and moola of setting up an archive site? SIMTEL-20 works beautifully, but apparently, there are a lot of people that don't get it. Compuserve would be incredibly impractical for me, on the other hand. BITnet LISTSERVers I can get to fine--can't anyone else? Back to my main point: Put away your ascension robes. This isn't the Last Days of USENET. Not even close. If USENET can survive JJ (and the conflagration that brought), USENET can certainly survive just about anything. --Ken McGlothlen mcglk@max.acs.washington.edu mcglk@scott.ms.washington.edu
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (06/15/88)
I'm an attmail customer. As a telex service, they can't be beat and you should sign up with them for that alone. (Its *wonderful* to get your telexes as e-mail instead of fighting with easylink or worse). However, in my opinion, their uucp electronic mail service is not reasonably priced and you might want to consider other alternatives for e-mail. (If you think attmail is reasonably priced, convert the X cents per short message into $/hour on a 2400 bps modem and see if you still think its a good deal. If you send 5 line messages, you probably win. If you send 100 line messages, it doesn't look that good) Anyway, thats just one happy attmail customers opinion. ---rick
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (06/15/88)
In article <2117@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > Let's try cutting off some feet. > ... > (4) Give every group in rec, soc, talk a going over. Flame groups > like talk.bizzarre or whatever the evolution group is this week > can go. Sure, cut out talk.bizarre. Then people will start cross-posting articles about lawn-darts and stolen paintings in comp.lang.c. Just what I needed! -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Guns don't kill people; I kill people.
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (06/15/88)
Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com) writes: > But it will be difficult to distinguish between the unmoderated and > moderated rec.* groups. I don't think this is true. It will be easy for the software to distinguish, because there's a different flag in the active file for moderated newsgroups. It will be easy for the readers to distinguish, because moderated groups have a much higher signal to noise ratio. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (06/15/88)
In article <56250@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>This strikes me as a panic reaction. Why don't we wait and see what impact >>the disappearance of ihnp4 actually has? > >Because the lost of at&t isn't a cause, it's a symptom. If the walls don't >tumble down with at&t, they may well do it with the next backbone dropout >(which WILL happen as folks try to shift their free-net to other willing >dupes, only to find out THEY can't afford it anymore, iether....). Or the >next. If you get gangrene, you don't wait to see if it'll stop with the toe, >or the ankle. You do something before you lose the entire leg -- or the body. And your solution to an ingrown toenail is to amputate at the knee. Slick! As it turns out, it *was* a panic reaction. ihnp4 will continue to serve as a news feed. It just won't pass on third-party mail. >>1) Require that each site that accepts a feed to pass the groups it accepts >> on to at least one other *long-distance* site. > >How? There's no administration, no rules, no bylaws. There's no enforcement >mechanism. How do you create one? True, there's no administration, no enforcement mechanism, but there is a culture, of sorts. Currently, the ethic is that if you get a feed, and you can afford to, you provide feeds for free. I'm suggesting that we should change this. If the sites you feed won't take a part in the survival of the net, cut them out of it. Obviously, there would still be leaf sites: it's topologically unnecessary (did I really write that?) to have every site provide a feed to some other site, but the element of responsibility should be present. >>2) Store the articles on disk in a compressed (possibly batched or tarred) >> form. Hack the newsreader software to accomodate it. > >Disk size is trivial in the problems. Besides, you trade off large amounts >of CPU cycles to get the disk savings, and most USENET systems these days >don't have spare CPU cycles, either. Bull! My home system has a 72 Meg disk. If I could store the articles in a compressed form, I could afford to take a hell of a lot more groups that I'd like to get. We don't all have Fuji Double Eagles hanging off of our machines. And the machine cycles would be taken up by the newsreader, not the transmission mechanism. So you have to wait a little longer before the next article comes up. I could live with that. >And then you would have to rewrite the software to accept the new format. >Which takes time to design, implement, test and distribute. Whereas it's trivial to solve the problem by hacking out two-thirds of the news group hierarchy. Just great, Chuq. Yes, of course, it will mean doing some work. Where do you think all of this software came from in the first place? Progress usually involves some effort. >>3) Get rid of uncompressed transmission for both news and mail. We would >> probably have to tack on some form of ECC. > >See 1. Realisticaly, almost all transmission these days already IS compressed. Mail isn't. Is it? Yes, most news is sent batched/compressed. I'm arguing that *everything* should be. Incremental gains add up. Apparently, the burden of passing *uncompressed* mail through ihnp4 was enough to make AT&T decide to kill the service. Dave Mack ...uunet!inco!mack ...sun!sundc!inco!mack
rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (06/16/88)
In article <1988Jun14.230853.7574@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Actually, there is one thing that can be done without software changes, >something that would cut traffic quite a bit and simultaneously greatly >improve the signal/noise ratio: go 100% moderated. I have been advocating this position for several years, and am very glad to find at least one other person who feels that 100% moderation would achieve the two goals of traffic reduction and quality increase. Roughly speaking, 60 of the 310 newsgroups are now moderated; moderating the remaining 250 or so would not be easy, but it's an idea deserving of serious consideration. Rich Kulawiec, PUCC News Admin
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (06/16/88)
In article <3182@charon.unm.edu> cscbrkac@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) whines:
"If your site feels that the {rec,soc,talk} groups are not appropriate for it,
then by all means, your site should feel free to not carry them. What I (and
presumably others) would object to is the *forced* removal of these groups
across the entire net in one fell swoop."
What makes you think that others share this opinion? Are you so presumptuous
as to believe that you represent others? When the weight of all the
noise groups brings the whole thing crashing down , you will sit there
smugly satisfied that at least no one removed your precious groups..
"The problem is not that the non-comp groups (or non-UNIX groups, for the
ultra-purists out there) are "wasting space," it is that there are sysadmins
out there who are unwilling to take any actions on their own; sysadmins who for
some reason feel they HAVE to carry all the "official" groups on Spaf's list,
and who are not willing to drop a group or class of groups unless the entire
net drops it."
Oh,you see the problem.. Very kind of you to share it with those of us who
can't see it ourselves. The crux of the situation is that while certain
groups are not considered to be useful,they are part of Usenet,and as such
should be carried.. Downstream sites have the right to receive as much news
as they wish.
"There is a
vocal subclass of sysadmins on the net who constantly complain about all the
difficulties involved in carrying {rec,soc,talk...} but who, even with the
tools at their fingertips to solve the problem, would rather have The Backbone
come riding in on a white horse and make their decisions for them."
Constantly complain eh? I think you've got something wrong here .. I believe
that was my first posting on this issue.
"I am growing increasingly tired of such people, who haven't got the initiative
to take a few simple steps on their own."
Maybe some site upstream from you should take some initiative..
Yes,you are pretty tired.. It does show.
"But crying to the net as
a whole and asking (or worse, DEMANDING) that the "offending" groups be taken
away from ALL of us is asshole behavior, pure and simple." Was there any need to
use language like this?
I don't believe anyone here has demanded anything. Several people proposed
possible alternatives to a perceived threat to the continued existence of an
extremely valuable medium. You now purport to represent "ALL" of us. This gets
better and better. By your final use of "asshole behaviour" you condemn yourself.
"There are plenty of
sites out there that are still willing to carry a full feed...if enough sites
decide not to carry {soc.foo} then {soc.foo} will die a natural death, and
deservedly so, but dynamiting all but the technical groups and forcing those of
us who want the rest of them to rebuild them from scratch would be an amazing
abuse of power on the part of the backbone."
Sure,an abuse of power.. Like AT&T's decision to stop pass through mail was
an incredible abuse of power. I can't imagine someone telling me that I have
to give everyone in my neighborhood a free ride to work just because I happen
to drive a passenger van. Then when I balk, I am abusing my power as a van
driver. They pay the costs,they have the power. Join the real world , if for
just a microsecond or two and pound this through your rec'd,soc'd,talk'd brain.
"The net is a community. I assume you also *live* in a community. Do you
complain to your city government about the type of people who you invite to
your parties? Do you expect your neighborhood association to keep the kinds of
people *you personally don't like associating with* from associating with
others in your neighborhood? No? Then why do you expect the net as a whole to
remove the groups that *you personally* don't want to carry?"
As your maunderings descend to a more personal level, I will reciprocate.
The principle you expound self righteously cuts both ways. Does one put up
with graffiti artists and vandals trashing a neighborhood park,forcing it
to close it's doors because "some" people want to trash it? Does Usenet have
to die a death by smothering before some people get the message that it is
not a bbs..
"The decision is *yours*. Don't expect the rest of the world to make it for
you."
No.. The decisions don't rest on me,they lie on the people who pay the bills.
When major companies start withdrawing their resources because of abuse,will
you still spew this trash? Maybe you will,but it may not leave the confines
of your site since there won't be an att,dec,sun,or university willing to
pay their money sending it halfway across the world.
Grow Up.
--
Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677
len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!lenkus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Bob Kusumoto) (06/16/88)
In article <3190@s.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes: >I have been advocating this position for several years, and am very >glad to find at least one other person who feels that 100% moderation >would achieve the two goals of traffic reduction and quality increase. >Roughly speaking, 60 of the 310 newsgroups are now moderated; moderating >the remaining 250 or so would not be easy, but it's an idea deserving >of serious consideration. A great idea, for USENET, but what about mail, the orginal problem that AT&T was going to change in the first place? You can't moderate mail can you? And if you did, how? read mail for junk? I don't particular like the idea of other people reading my mail. -- Bob Kusumoto | Follow me! Internet: kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu | I'll play the game you want me, BITNET: kus3@sphinx.uchicago.bitnet | Until I find a way back home. UUCP: {ihnp4!gargoyle,oddjob}!sphinx!kus3 | --- Genesis, "One for the Vine"
jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (06/16/88)
In article <1988Jun14.230853.7574@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Actually, there is one thing that can be done without software changes, >something that would cut traffic quite a bit and simultaneously greatly >improve the signal/noise ratio: go 100% moderated. bravo! here's my vote, and an offer to moderate a group. - john. -- John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chemistry Quote --------- River Parishes Programming | "If you aren't part of the solution, UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | you are part of the precipitate." DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- Some FORTUNE program
cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (06/16/88)
>> ...What I (and presumably others) would object to is the *forced* removal of >> these {rec,soc,talk} groups across the entire net in one fell swoop. > > What makes you think that others share this opinion? Are you so presumptuous > as to believe that you represent others? I don't think the presumption that others share my views on this subject is particularly out-of-line. If you think otherwise, well then why not hop on over to soc.singles or rec.arts.sf-lovers or talk.bizarre (oh, ESPECIALLY talk.bizarre!) and let them know how you feel -- that their groups should be taken away from the entire net community so *your* sysadmin doen't "have" to carry them anymore. I think you'll get a feel for how many others "share this opinion". >> The problem is not that the non-comp groups (or non-UNIX groups, for the >> ultra-purists out there) are "wasting space," it is that there are sysadmins >> ...who are not willing to drop a group or class of groups unless the entire >> net drops it. > > Oh,you see the problem.. Very kind of you to share it with those of us who > can't see it ourselves. The crux of the situation is that while certain > groups are not considered to be useful,they are part of Usenet,and as such > should be carried.. Downstream sites have the right to receive as much news > as they wish. This is exactly what I am arguing against. No site should feel "obligated" to carry anything. Downstream sites have the "right" to recieve *whatever they can find a feed for*...but your site is not obligated to provide that feed! If you don't feel that soc.motss or rec.music.misc or <fill in your least favorite group> is "useful" by whatever definition you choose to use, then by all means, drop the damn group and get on with your life. The people that *do* think it's useful will carry on without you. But: >> ...dynamiting all but the technical groups and forcing those of us who want >> the rest of them to rebuild them from scratch would be an amazing abuse of >> power on the part of the backbone. > > Sure,an abuse of power.. Like AT&T's decision to stop pass through mail was > an incredible abuse of power. I can't imagine someone telling me that I have > to give everyone in my neighborhood a free ride to work just because I happen > to drive a passenger van. Then when I balk, I am abusing my power as a van > driver. They pay the costs,they have the power. Read my original post again, *carefully* this time. Anyone (including the backbone) can carry or not carry *anything they like*. If the backbone decides to no longer carry a group, they have every right to do so -- I have no argument with that at all. What they do NOT have a right to do is unilaterally rmgroup an active group FOR THE ENTIRE NET, which is the action that *I've* seen discussed. If other sites wish to keep carrying a group that the backbone considers "useless" they should be allowed to do so. The relative success of the alt subnet proves that this is a viable alternative. >> Do you expect your neighborhood association to keep the kinds of people *you >> personally don't like associating with* from associating witoh others in >> your neighborhood? No? Then why do you expect the net as a whole to remove >> the groups that *you personally* don't want to carry? > > The principle you expound self righteously cuts both ways. Does one put up > with graffiti artists and vandals trashing a neighborhood park,forcing it > to close it's doors because "some" people want to trash it? Does Usenet have > to die a death by smothering before some people get the message that it is > not a bbs.. I do not consider the {rec,talk,soc} groups to be in the same class as "graffiti artists and vandals". If you feel that they are, again, why is your site carrying them? Many, many people use and enjoy these groups. Just because some sites don't want them, use them, or like them does not give those sites the right to forcibly deprive THE ENTIRE NET of these groups. If some of us want to invite the "graffiti artists and vandals" into our homes, we should be allowed to do so. You, as my neighbor, have no right to tell me who I can and cannot associate with. > When major companies start withdrawing their resources because of abuse,will > you still spew this trash? Maybe you will,but it may not leave the confines > of your site since there won't be an att,dec,sun,or university willing to > pay their money sending it halfway across the world. > > Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 When major companies start withdrawing their resources from the net (assuming that they do), other, smaller companies and individuals will fill in the gaps. I do not foresee a sudden, wholesale abandonment of the net by anyone major anytime soon...it is simply too valuable a resource, whatever its faults. I *do* foresee a minor upheaval when some site admins start realizing that they can only justify carrying certain groups, and decide to (gasp!) actually do something about it. Things will get a little crazy for awhile as their downstream sites have to look for alternate feeds to get those groups, but in the end the net will be much better for it, as the volume will be spread around a little more evenly, and the net as a whole will be even *less* vulnerable to one or two or more sites shutting down. In the coming years, the net as an entity should be able to survive quite easily, but *if and only if* everyone uses a little common sense. I do not think wholesale amputation of the majority of the net falls under the heading of "common sense". Careful selection of what you do and do not carry does. -- Lazlo Nibble (cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu)
greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) (06/16/88)
In article <8547@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >In article <3182@charon.unm.edu> cscbrkac@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) whines: > >What I (and >presumably others) would object to is the *forced* removal of these groups >across the entire net in one fell swoop." > > What makes you think that others share this opinion? Are you so presumptuous > as to believe that you represent others? Lazlo allows that he's making an assumption. Len attacks Lazlo for making the assumption. Reading this group regularly would seem to indicate that there might be some validity to Lazlo's presumption that others might object. Certainly, I would object. Thus Lazlo's presumption is valid. The level of Lazlo's presumptuousness is not relevent to the discussion. > > Oh,you see the problem.. Very kind of you to share it with those of us who > can't see it ourselves. The crux of the situation is that while certain > groups are not considered to be useful,they are part of Usenet,and as such > should be carried.. Downstream sites have the right to receive as much news > as they wish. > Downstream sites don't have any rights at all (within the context of receiving news). AT&T, for example, doesn't officially carry rec.nude and presumably doesn't feed it downstream. So what? >"There is a >vocal subclass of sysadmins on the net who constantly complain about all the >difficulties involved in carrying {rec,soc,talk...} but who, even with the >tools at their fingertips to solve the problem, would rather have The Backbone >come riding in on a white horse and make their decisions for them." > > Constantly complain eh? I think you've got something wrong here .. I believe > that was my first posting on this issue. Then you must not be part of the class. I have noticed the constant complaints though. Others have managed, somehow, to drop the groups without suggesting that everyone else do the same. > >"I am growing increasingly tired of such people, who haven't got the initiative >to take a few simple steps on their own." > > Maybe some site upstream from you should take some initiative.. > Yes,you are pretty tired.. It does show. > I can't figure out what this was supposed to mean. >"But crying to the net as >a whole and asking (or worse, DEMANDING) that the "offending" groups be taken >away from ALL of us is asshole behavior, pure and simple." Was there any need to >use language like this? > > I don't believe anyone here has demanded anything. Several people proposed >possible alternatives to a perceived threat to the continued existence of an >extremely valuable medium. You now purport to represent "ALL" of us. This gets >better and better. By your final use of "asshole behaviour" you condemn yourself. > But crying to the net as a whole and asking (or worse, DEMANDING) that the "offending" groups be taken away from those who find them useful is presumptuous, pure and simple. Is that better? Of course, there are no rules here about being presumptuous. >us who want the rest of them to rebuild them from scratch would be an amazing >abuse of power on the part of the backbone." > > Sure,an abuse of power.. Like AT&T's decision to stop pass through mail was > an incredible abuse of power. I can't imagine someone telling me that I have > to give everyone in my neighborhood a free ride to work just because I happen > to drive a passenger van. Then when I balk, I am abusing my power as a van > driver. They pay the costs,they have the power. Join the real world , if for > just a microsecond or two and pound this through your rec'd,soc'd,talk'd brain. Len is right. Presuming to tell the backbone what groups to carry (or to no carry) would be presumptuous. I wonder, however, if Len would consider his own brain to be comp'd. > >"The net is a community. I assume you also *live* in a community. Do you >complain to your city government about the type of people who you invite to >your parties? Do you expect your neighborhood association to keep the kinds of > > As your maunderings descend to a more personal level, I will reciprocate. > The principle you expound self righteously cuts both ways. Does one put up > with graffiti artists and vandals trashing a neighborhood park,forcing it > to close it's doors because "some" people want to trash it? Does Usenet have > to die a death by smothering before some people get the message that it is > not a bbs.. I don't know what a maundering is. I'm not sure how to tell which postings are "grafitti" and which are "bbs" postings. I don't read 95% of the comp groups. Perhaps we should axe those groups too. If we axed rec, talk, soc, and 95% of comp, the traffic on the net would be very manageable, there would be almost nothing I wasn't interested in, and we could concentrate more on the news groups and these discussions. Then we could moderate the whole thing and maybe get it down to 4 or 5 articles a day. It might be difficult to get a consensus on this, though. > >"The decision is *yours*. Don't expect the rest of the world to make it for >you." > > No.. The decisions don't rest on me,they lie on the people who pay the bills. > When major companies start withdrawing their resources because of abuse,will > you still spew this trash? Maybe you will,but it may not leave the confines > of your site since there won't be an att,dec,sun,or university willing to > pay their money sending it halfway across the world. > Nope. It's yours, Len. If you want to pay the bills, you can have anything you want. Also, you don't need to have anything you don't want. Others might possibly have different values than yourself. I'm having some problems figuring out which part is the trash and which part is the abuse. > Grow Up. Are you speaking here from experience? -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.CTS.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!greg
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/16/88)
In article <56250@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>> o rec.all -- maybe keep rec.arts.sf-lovers. >>Shouldn't there be a smiley face after this line? > >Actually (and this is, I'm sure, controversial) no. Why? SF-Lovers has an >extremely large readership across both USENET and Internet. If it were >removed from USENET, lots of the burden of SF-L would shift to E-mail links, >which doesn't really solve anything. This isn't true of any other rec group. Which ignores the fact that several rec groups (and some sci and soc groups) have greater readership, sometimes *far* greater than sf-lovers. Even talk.bizarre has the same readership, god knows why. Perhaps it is because the noise level in sf-lovers has gotten too high. I have to admit a bias for SF-lovers. It was the first group I ever read. I read it as an arpanet mailing list almost before there was a USENET. It has more history than almost any group. But Chuq is just being his usual self-important self in making up the reasons above. (I'm surprised he didn't drop of the name of one of his many good-buddy famous SF personalities who are in agreement!) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 "USENET -- the world's least important network."
andrey@arizona.edu (Andrey K. Yeatts) (06/17/88)
In article <8547@netsys.UUCP>, len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) blathers: > In article <3182@charon.unm.edu> cscbrkac@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes: [And so on, and so forth, etc., ad infinitum, ] > Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 > len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!len ^^^^^ Your slip is showing. Get the point? -- Andrey Yeatts Dept. of Computer Science andrey@arizona.edu Univ. of Arizona {allegra,cmcl2,noao}!arizona!andrey Tucson, AZ 85721 (602) 621-2858
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/17/88)
A couple of thoughts:
1) If AT&T changes from a high volume backbone site to a high volume
leaf site (this is how I interpret their announcement anyway), then
what lucky non-AT&T machine gets to be their feed? ;-) Were the
administrators of said lucky machine consulted during all these
"high level meetings"? ;-)
2) After the horrid comp.women wars it's a pleasure to read so much
reasoned discussion of a pressing issue. A lot of people are doing
the net proud this week, and I mean that.
3) What concrete numerical evidence is available showing that Usenet is
too big right now? Have surveys been done measuring target and actual
resource consumptions on backbone and end sites? How do we separate
what might be panic reactions by admins who "had to cut off everything
but comp.righteous.iron," from informed decisions made by folks who
actually knew just how MUCH too big things were, and how much was in
fact saved by cutting back?
4) Never mind ihnp4 -- can USENET survive its own mythology? :-)
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
"None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF
will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding?smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (06/18/88)
In article <5017@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP writes: > A couple of thoughts: > > 1) If AT&T changes from a high volume backbone site to a high volume > leaf site (this is how I interpret their announcement anyway), then > what lucky non-AT&T machine gets to be their feed? ;-) Were the > administrators of said lucky machine consulted during all these > "high level meetings"? ;-) This should actually cut the traffic. Look at it this way: no traffic that flows in to the gateway will flow back out -- it will be seen as duplicate, and bounced. The only traffic flowing out, then, will be postings by AT&T employees -- but those are arriving anyway on everyone's machines, often several times by several twisty paths. Again, this way you only see one copy.
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (06/18/88)
In article <2350@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >1) Require that each site that accepts a feed to pass the groups it accepts > on to at least one other *long-distance* site. (Please think hard about > this one before flaming. Darwinism at its purest.) I thought hard. Still think it's unneeded and dumb. I would venture a guess that more than 90% of the existing connections used for Usenet are local. You want to get rid of all those? I, for one, couldn't AFFORD a long-distance feed. >2) Store the articles on disk in a compressed (possibly batched or tarred) > form. Hack the newsreader software to accomodate it. And, while you're at it, hack your hardware to give you the extra cycles to allow this to happen without bringing your system to a standstill. >3) Get rid of uncompressed transmission for both news and mail. We would > probably have to tack on some form of ECC. Depends. Transmission of individual pieces of mail would not benefit particularly greatly by this - compression efficiency is pretty much a function of file size. Most sites already do send news batched and compressed. And with Trailblazers, you might not even want to send compressed, if the modem will do it for you more efficiently. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
rk@bigbroth.UUCP (rohan kelley) (06/18/88)
In article <1744@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > In article <2645@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: > >I wonder why AT&T provided those machines free of charge > >for the net for all of these years. > > When we talk about the fact that USENET is is now costing around $30,000 > per DAY in transmission costs, or around 10 million dollars per year, > it should be remembered just who most of that money is paid to. > > The answer is, the AT&T long distance division. Of course, some of it > goes to AT&T competitors, but I expect that's not a big percentage. > > And that doesn't count the extra mail volume generated by the news. > > It was suggested, jokingly, at one time, that the net was a conspiracy > by AT&T to collect long distance revenue. ..... If AT&T doesn't want to carry the mail, perhaps one of the competing long distance carriers, MCI, etc. would like to talk to the backbones about their long distance service requirements. *filled space* . . . . . . . .. . . . ======================================================================= Rohan Kelley -- UNIleX Systems, Inc. (Systems and software for lawyers) UUCP: ...{ihnp4!codas,ucf-cs,allegra,uflorida}!novavax!bigbroth!rk ATTmail: attmail!bigbroth!rk 3365 Galt Ocean Drive, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Phone: (305) 563-1504 "Go first class or your heirs will" -somebodyelse =======================================================================
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/18/88)
In article <5017@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > A couple of thoughts: > 2) After the horrid comp.women wars it's a pleasure to read so much > reasoned discussion of a pressing issue. A lot of people are doing > the net proud this week, and I mean that. Hear hear! I almost started using Rnews just so I could have a kill file. Grr.... -- Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... Spelling errors are directly related to how little time I have... J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (06/19/88)
In article <2350@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > > 1) Require that each site that accepts a feed to pass the groups it accepts > on to at least one other *long-distance* site. (Please think hard about > this one before flaming. Darwinism at its purest.) Obviously, this > produces far more connectivity than is necessary. The exception > would be sites that pay for their feed. And no, I have no idea how > this could be enforced, except by the upstream sites cutting off > slackers. Well I could see where this would help keep net speed up, but isn't there enough sites around that we could all feed one or two other LOCAL sites ?? Now don't get me wrong, I personally feed sites in several different sates at the moment, but if everybody wasn't so concerned about giving a new guy on the block a feed I probably wouldn't have to feed out of state sites.. > 2) Store the articles on disk in a compressed (possibly batched or tarred) > form. Hack the newsreader software to accomodate it. This is a good idea, but it should be dependant on the site (like batching news for transmission). Some sites would be more concerned with CPU overhead, and others with disk storage.. > 3) Get rid of uncompressed transmission for both news and mail. We would > probably have to tack on some form of ECC. Again I say this should be site dependant.. > These are random suggestions. There are undoubtedly difficulties with > all of them. Point them out. Try to improve on them. > > If you have suggestions for methods of improving Usenet, please send them > to me by e-mail. I will occasionally post a summmary to the net. Please be > specific and realistic. We have to work within the constraints of > (soon-to-be-)available technology. Please do *not* suggest killing off > newsgroups you don't like, or posters you don't like. > > Dave Mack I feel this is a good topic to discuss, and hopefully the network as a whole can benifit from this (instead of terribly suffer)... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : wb3ffv@w3itm-9 | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
cap@wayback.UUCP (Cindy) (06/20/88)
In article <2117@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > (4) Give every group in rec, soc, talk a going over. Flame groups > like talk.bizzarre or whatever the evolution group is this week > can go. You really should read a group before you suggest that it "can go" It is called talk.bizarre btw, and it is *not* a flame group. It shows a definite lack of character to criticize that which you know nothing about. And just who is suppose to do this going over? How can anyone judge any rec, soc or talk group to be better than any other? Either get rid of all of them or keep all of them, no one should impose their own personal tastes on anyone else. Anyway, I like the idea of splitting USENET up into COMPNET, RECNET and SOCNET.
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (06/21/88)
In article <2805@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >In article <1988Jun14.230853.7574@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Actually, there is one thing that can be done without software changes, >>something that would cut traffic quite a bit and simultaneously greatly >>improve the signal/noise ratio: go 100% moderated. > >bravo! here's my vote, and an offer to moderate a group. I offer my services as moderator of talk.bizarre. Heh heh. Dave Mack
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (06/21/88)
Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) writes: > True, there's no administration, no enforcement mechanism, but there is a > culture, of sorts. Currently, the ethic is that if you get a feed, and > you can afford to, you provide feeds for free. I'm suggesting that we > should change this. If the sites you feed won't take a part in the survival > of the net, cut them out of it. I was involved in something along these lines. In my previous job, I ran a site on the backbone map. Shortly after I left the company, the management decided to stop forwarding news to non-company machines. Fortunately, those of us who were getting news from this backbone machine had almost 48 hours to find alternative feeds. What happened was that I "stole" all but one of this ex-backbone site's backbone news feeds, since they were no longer willing to provide feeds. BTW, I offered them a feed, if they polled me for it. :-) -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (06/23/88)
In article <10456@mcdchg.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) writes: >> of the net, cut them out of it. > >I was involved in something along these lines. In my previous job, I ran a >site on the backbone map. Shortly after I left the company, the management >decided to stop forwarding news to non-company machines. Fortunately, those >of us who were getting news from this backbone machine had almost 48 hours >to find alternative feeds. What happened was that I "stole" all but one of >this ex-backbone site's backbone news feeds, since they were no longer willing >to provide feeds. BTW, I offered them a feed, if they polled me for it. :-) I think this points out the fact that in most cases the backbone is made up of *individuals* not companies who are willing to put their time and energy into keeping Usenet working. How many times have we seen a site "dry" up when the system manager leaves? In some cases like this one to be replaced with a new one organized by the same person at a new company. Machine cycles and disk space are cheap. Lets show some more respect for these guys who keep the whole thing running. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (06/28/88)
From: len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) Subject: Re: The death of USENET > Is there any way to formalize Chuq's proposals,and get them acted on > by the net at large? Or should I say the "backbone" at large. This, of course, raises the old Backbone Cabal arguments which I'll let some other poor slob step into. I think it would be atrociously antisocial though, to simply write up a set of proposals and then convince a restricted, yet powerful group of net administrators to act upon them "on behalf of the network at large." Yeh... not cool at all. > Binary > and noise groups being deleted would reduce overall traffic by at > least 30 percent. Eliminating microcomputer groups should be held off > as long as possible since pc's play an important part in today's > computing environment and are often part of a Unix oriented network. Which groups are more important than others depends upon the environment you come from. For those sites with no microcomputers, these groups might be the first to go. I agree, however, that the binary groups are fair game. No one wants to spread an epidemic of computer viruses. If you don't have a compiler to compile source code then you probably don't want public domain stuff anyway. I agree that a lot of the noise groups could go away. Talk.bizzare is fair game. Maybe soc.singles... just maybe. It really depends on your point of view. Me? I just expire them quickly or restrict them from my site altogether. This keeps disk usage down which is the real expense. > Just my opinion,so please treat it as such.. I have no illusions as to > what weight it carries.. Flames are stupid and waste spool space. So are ill-considered opinions. ... and hey ... let's be particularly careful out there, okay guys? -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611 "Hi... My name is Hobbes. I'm the product of a malicious 5-year old's twisted and destructive imagination. Would YOU like to be my friend?"