pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (06/13/88)
In article <56228@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > [ re: the need for a strict Usenet byte-diet program :-)] > 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: > > [binaries, sources other than Unix, talk, soc, rec, misc, eventually > microcomputer groups] Usenet *is* clearly too big. But I think there is a good solution waiting to be implemented. I hope it isn't too late. A paragraph of context: Much as the long-term-netters would hate to admit it [and I count myself as a medium long-termer], Usenet *is* like a BBS in some senses. Compare Usenet with Fidonet, and you'll see that they are very similar information systems. Sure, there are tremendous differences. Put your flamethrower away. Two quick examples: rn beats any Fido newsreader. Fido data transmission beats every Unix method I've ever seen. [all messages, including mail, can be auto-compressed and packaged into a single outgoing data stream; zmodem provides pick-up-where-you-left-off error recovery as well]. I digress. If Unix were as numerically popular as [pick-your-micro], Usenet would have many of the problems it does today even *without* the micro groups. The problem, as I see it, is an Nth degree expansion of the "house for rent in New Jersey, but the article is distributed worldwide" problem. We don't have too much traffic being *generated*, we have too much traffic being *received*. Disregarding binary postings for the moment, I doubt that the average traffic generated per person is much higher today than it was several years ago. As the net grows, if I recieve all traffic generated by everybody, I'm guaranteed to be overwhelmed eventually. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE ALL DISCUSSIONS ON A WORLDWIDE LEVEL ANY MORE. Some discussions can be worldwide; some can be regional (country, province, local area). Some, perhaps, should be limited to a local site. The problem is, we don't have a good way to control distributions. Right now, 'distribution' and 'top level namespace' are incredibly twisted together. They share the same namespace (ba and ba.*, ca and ca.*, etc.). They share the same field in the sys file. We need to truly separate Distribution and Newgroups. Then we can have one coherent namespace. We can regionalize any high-volume discussions [talk, soc and rec come to mind immediately!] Worldwide distribution can be limited to moderated groups, plus high quality, low volume technical discussions. Any technical discussions generating high volume can be regionalized. [If there is sufficient volume, there should be enough experts in each region to maintain the quality!] Another paragraph of context: Even binaries can be handled, on a regional basis. Maybe the regions for things like binaries should be 'local-calls-only'. But let's be practical. For many of us, the net is our primary electronic discussion and technical info (including Useful Programs) communications medium. Many of us have our feet firmly planted in both the Unix and Microcomputer worlds. Microcomputers make the world go 'round right now. A lot of us Unix-people also use a Micro professionally. I make more $$$ from my microcomputer work, simply because there are more customers out there. If we eliminate Micros from the net, at the very least, we eliminate a lot of the Fun. It is likely that we'd be removing a significant part of the technical usefulness of the net. I take it as a given that Micros are going to stay, whether we like it or not. There are two keys to the Micro problem on the net: 1) there are a lot of 'em; 2) The user/techie ratio is higher for Micros than for Unix boxes. I think regionalization will solve the volume problem, without killing valuable information services for Microcomputer users or Techies. I, for one, would find the net significantly less valuable if the Useful microcomputer stuff weren't available. In general, the drivel can be kept to a local level, with Important postings sent worldwide by a moderator. I'd like to see three kinds of newsgroups: 1) Completely unmoderated. Anybody can post for widespread distribution. For highest content, low volume discussions of widespread interest. 2) Distribution-moderated. Unmoderated discussion allowed for distributions [all but XX, YY, ZZ??? Levels 3 and up??? I'm sure we can come up with something good!]. Widest distribution postings are moderated. For the highest volume groups, we should implement capability for moderators at different levels [worldwide moderator, N continental moderators, etc?]. Many groups could survive nicely this way. A single moderator could handle a lot of rec groups, since most discussions have no need of worldwide distribution. 3) Completely moderated. Just like today's moderated groups, although we might eventually want to have multiple regional moderators. Well, that's my .2 cents worth. Obviously, there's WORK involved here. Posting and news distribution software would require modification. Hopefully not too extensive; I haven't looked to see! Whaddayathink? Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746