haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (05/10/88)
In article <1559@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: > Total 33 522398 21% 417156 > This newest version of the PiCnix collection is not currently > available from any public or private BBS, so you'll see it here > first! > -- > Dick this has become a rather hot topic with me and several others. when is the moderator going to take charge of this (comp.binaries.ibm.pc) and cut the volume on this group? i actually have several complaints with picnix being distributed on the net. first, picnix is a shareware product which the author is going to, attempt at least, make money from. as such, this posting belonged in biz.binaries.whatever. the source for picnix is available, therefore if anything were to be distributed it should be the sources, except that picnix is shareware and the author is greedy. secondly, we know what picnix is and another version has already been posted to usenet recently. i in fact run it on the compaqs here at work. why should my upstream feed be expected to transmit that thing to me if they aren't using it, considering i can pick it up from my local archive site? thirdly, the cost of transmitting this product is once again being borne by the net without their consent, per se. comp.binaries.ibm.pc was agreed upon as a moderated group. for monies to be spent on a whim by someone not the moderator is unfair and unjust. for dick flagan to spend $2,500 of the net's money at the push of a button is WRONG. fourthly, the cost of acquiring picnix from a public access site is minimal. the transmission costs for this package are approximately $4.00 at 2400bps, and right at $9.00 for 1200bps (figures based on connection statistics at rpp386) neither of those amounts are too much to expect an individual to pay. fifth, the posters in comp.binaries.ibm.pc don't seem to have the connectivity to be providing useful services to the net. rahul dhesi, the moderator of c.b.i.p, has provided useful services to the net, in the form of zoo, and would seem to be a responsible person, worthy of our trust. who is dick flagan? and did anyone notice that the site which transmitted the code was a uupc site? are we really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and provide nothing in return? having presented what i feel to be a rational, and reasonable argument for installing the moderator, would someone explain why it hasn't been done and then go do it anyway? and as an aside, i will be making picnix available for anonymous uucp AS I DO FOR MANY OTHER PACKAGES. if you missed a part COME AND GET IT YOURSELF! - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :DOMAIN "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/11/88)
In article <111@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
...been posted to usenet recently. i in fact run it on the compaqs here
...at work. why should my upstream feed be expected to transmit that
...thing to me if they aren't using it, considering i can pick it up
...from my local archive site?
Not to defend these folks, but I'm not aware that I have a "local
archive site" if indeed one exists. Apparently, the closest one to me
is in Ohio. Thus it's much less expensive to get the stuff from my feed
than to call Ohio.
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800miller@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Andy Miller) (05/12/88)
In article <111@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <1559@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: >> Total 33 522398 21% 417156 > >> This newest version of the PiCnix collection is not currently >> available from any public or private BBS, so you'll see it here >> first! >> -- >> Dick > >this has become a rather hot topic with me and several others. when >is the moderator going to take charge of this (comp.binaries.ibm.pc) >and cut the volume on this group? > >i actually have several complaints with picnix being distributed on >the net. > FLAME ON ....... >first, picnix is a shareware product which the author is going to, >attempt at least, make money from. as such, this posting >belonged in biz.binaries.whatever. the source for picnix is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bull****!!! Greediness has nothing to do with this and this .arc file is far better off in c.b.i.p than any biz.binaries.whatever. >available, therefore if anything were to be distributed it should >be the sources, except that picnix is shareware and the author is greedy. > >secondly, we know what picnix is and another version has already >been posted to usenet recently. i in fact run it on the compaqs here >at work. why should my upstream feed be expected to transmit that >thing to me if they aren't using it, considering i can pick it up >from my local archive site? Newer version, updates, and later releases have always been and should always be welcomed on this net. Not everyone, like myself, can just "pick" it up from a local archive site. I __need__ every feed I can get. Futthermore, I think it is great that you have the earlier version up and running and all, but why would you not be interested in using a possibly better version. Do you perfer to be fat, dumb, and happy? > >thirdly, the cost of transmitting this product is once again being >borne by the net without their consent, per se. comp.binaries.ibm.pc >was agreed upon as a moderated group. for monies to be spent on a >whim by someone not the moderator is unfair and unjust. for dick >flagan to spend $2,500 of the net's money at the push of a button >is WRONG. > Alas this is true.... >fourthly, the cost of acquiring picnix from a public access site is >minimal. the transmission costs for this package are approximately >$4.00 at 2400bps, and right at $9.00 for 1200bps (figures based on >connection statistics at rpp386) neither of those amounts are too >much to expect an individual to pay. > Personally I know of no other "public access site" where I can get this software. The net is my PUBLIC access site. >fifth, the posters in comp.binaries.ibm.pc don't seem to have the >connectivity to be providing useful services to the net. rahul >dhesi, the moderator of c.b.i.p, has provided useful services to the >net, in the form of zoo, and would seem to be a responsible person, ^^^^^ Ha! Personal bias but zoo is NOT a useful service. >worthy of our trust. who is dick flagan? and did anyone notice ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I see nothing wrong with Dick Flagan. >that the site which transmitted the code was a uupc site? are we ^^^^ >really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and >provide nothing in return? Since when has this net been for Unix boxes only. Why the hell would UUPC be sent around so many times and supported by usenet members if they were not to be allowed to participate???!!! > >having presented what i feel to be a rational, and reasonable argument >for installing the moderator, would someone explain why it hasn't been >done and then go do it anyway? and as an aside, i will be making >picnix available for anonymous uucp AS I DO FOR MANY OTHER PACKAGES. >if you missed a part COME AND GET IT YOURSELF! > How in the world am I supposed to uucp into your machine??? There are 101 different machines between mine and yours. At any given time one or with my luck all are down. Give me a break.... Furthermore there is no way I get out to SIMTELL20 and get these things myself. To stop sending files out in c.b.i.p would practically slit my throat. What do you think c.b.i.p was even created for???!!!! -------- FLAME OFF ------------ Sorry to be taking up the net bandwidth with such dribble but this guy sounds like he is really out in left field in regards to people in my position. Andy.Miller@Dayton.NCR.COM ---------------------------------- Disclaimer: Absolutely none of my comments are the views of the company or anyone else related to the company. Just little old me.
ane@hal.UUCP (Aydin "Bif" Edguer) (05/12/88)
In article <435@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM> miller@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Andy Miller) writes: >In article <111@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>first, picnix is a shareware product which the author is going to, >>attempt at least, make money from. as such, this posting >>belonged in biz.binaries.whatever. the source for picnix is > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Bull****!!! >Greediness has nothing to do with this and this .arc file is far better >off in c.b.i.p than any biz.binaries.whatever. The DARPAnet is specifically prohibited from being used for commercial purposes. Violating this can be prosecuted under Federal law. The question of whether shareware is commercial or non-commercial is rather gray but when in doubt it is better to err on the side of safety. While the USEnet is not the ARPAnet, many of its sites and links are part of the ARPAnet. Thus by using the biz.all groups, sites can effectively decide whether this is a program they want to carry, and ARPAnet sites can safely carry comp.binaries.* without worry. If you want shareware, get a connection to a site carrying the biz groups. If you are unwilling to pay the cost then stop complaining and don't bother everyone else. >Do you perfer to be fat, dumb, and happy? I would always prefer to be happy. Now why are you ridiculing people with larger fat cells than you have? Keep your prejudices to yourself. >>fourthly, the cost of acquiring picnix from a public access site is >>minimal. the transmission costs for this package are approximately >>$4.00 at 2400bps, and right at $9.00 for 1200bps (figures based on >>connection statistics at rpp386) neither of those amounts are too >>much to expect an individual to pay. >> >Personally I know of no other "public access site" where I can get this >software. The net is my PUBLIC access site. Hmmm. The "net" is not a site. The net is composed of a large group of sites. The site you have access to speaks to at least one other site. If that site is not feeding you the information you want there is always UUNET. UUNET is a Sequent Balance that carries all groups and distributes them on a pay basis (you pay for connection costs). If you are unwilling to pay this small cost then you are part of the problem that everyone (except BOB) is complaining about. You think the news is important only if you don't have to pay for it. >>having presented what i feel to be a rational, and reasonable argument >>for installing the moderator, would someone explain why it hasn't been >>done and then go do it anyway? and as an aside, i will be making >>picnix available for anonymous uucp AS I DO FOR MANY OTHER PACKAGES. >>if you missed a part COME AND GET IT YOURSELF! >> >How in the world am I supposed to uucp into your machine??? There are 101 >different machines between mine and yours. At any given time one or with my >luck all are down. Give me a break.... Furthermore there is no way I get out >to SIMTELL20 and get these things myself. To stop sending files out in >c.b.i.p would practically slit my throat. What do you think c.b.i.p was even >created for???!!!! Ahem. RTFM. ALL THE FMs. You have a phone and a modem, right? He has a phone and a modem, too. Well you dial his phone number and login in and bang! you have a uucp connection. Tough, huh. What's that? You don't know his phone number? Well, there is this little thing called the maps. They're found in comp.mail.maps. There is a program called uuhosts that lets you use them easily. According to the maps his phone number is +1 214 250 3311. In fact if you read a little farther you won't even need to call him to find out how to connect up, HE TELLS YOU. = This machine takes anonymous mail and gives anonymous uucp requests = for sources. Call +1 214 250-6272. Startup at 2400, one break = for 1200. UUCP login is anonuucp, no password. Send mail or pick = up /usr/spool/uucppublic/archive for a list of available files. >Sorry to be taking up the net bandwidth with such dribble but this guy >sounds like he is really out in left field in regards to people in my >position. No. He is right there scoring a touch-down. It's you who are out there in the stands thinking its a softball game that has problems. Aydin Edguer edguer@mandrill.ces.cwru.edu
dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (05/13/88)
In article <111@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: > i actually have several complaints with picnix being distributed on > the net. I am responding to this because I am the poster of PICNIX V3. > first, picnix is a shareware product which the author is going to, > attempt at least, make money from. as such, this posting > belonged in biz.binaries.whatever. the source for picnix is > available, therefore if anything were to be distributed it should > be the sources, except that picnix is shareware and the author is greedy. Let's see. At $15 for 30 utilities, that works out to fifty-cents each. Yup, he's greedy, all right! > secondly, we know what picnix is and another version has already > been posted to usenet recently. The recent posting (four months ago) was of PICNIC V2 and that was already more than a year old when it was posted. PICNIX V3 has been significantly polished and improved since V2. (I am not the author, by the way.) > i in fact run it on the compaqs here > at work. I see your standards didn't prevent you from benefiting from that previous posting. Let me guess. You registered them all, didn't you? > why should my upstream feed be expected to transmit that > thing to me if they aren't using it, considering i can pick it up > from my local archive site? Just how are they supposed to know what you do and don't want? > thirdly, the cost of transmitting this product is once again being > borne by the net without their consent, per se. comp.binaries.ibm.pc > was agreed upon as a moderated group. for monies to be spent on a > whim by someone not the moderator is unfair and unjust. comp.binaries.ibm.pc was NOT moderated at the time of the posting. The moderation control messages arrive two days later. > fourthly, the cost of acquiring picnix from a public access site is > minimal. the transmission costs for this package are approximately > $4.00 at 2400bps, and right at $9.00 for 1200bps (figures based on > connection statistics at rpp386) neither of those amounts are too > much to expect an individual to pay. You appear to be arguing for the dissolution of c.b.i.p. It sounds like a more reasonable solution for all of us would be for you to simply unsubscribe. > fifth, the posters in comp.binaries.ibm.pc don't seem to have the > connectivity to be providing useful services to the net. Say what? > rahul > dhesi, the moderator of c.b.i.p, has provided useful services to the > net, in the form of zoo, and would seem to be a responsible person, > worthy of our trust. who is dick flagan[sic]? No argument regarding Rahul's contributions, but, with any due respect, what is _your_ price of admission? Is there some rite of initiation you exact from potential posters? (And if you're going to flame me, at least spell my name correctly!) > and did anyone notice > that the site which transmitted the code was a uupc site? Oh, dear me, yes. How silly of me to use a PC to com- municate with a newsgroup about PC's. Next time I'll consider using one of the Suns to keep the elitests happy (or is a mere workstation still not good enough?). > are we > really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and > provide nothing in return? Answering questions, responding to requests, contributing to discussions, posting sources and binaries of wide interest, these have been my attempts to repay the net for all I have received from it. What must I do, John, to satisfy YOU? On second thought, ask me if I care! Sheesh! -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481 Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6 USPS: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (05/13/88)
In article <435@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM>, miller@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Andy Miller) writes: > > Since when has this net been for Unix boxes only. Why the hell would UUPC be > sent around so many times and supported by usenet members if they were not to > be allowed to participate???!!! Well, "this net" was started EXPLICITLY for Unix boxes. It remained EXCLUSIVELY for Unix boxes for the first 5 (more or less) years of its existance. A few years ago, the "pcs" started encroaching on it. One should also keep in mind that the Unix boxes (don't you love anthropomorphism?) are paying the vast majority of the cost of the network. Currently they tolerate the pc binaries, but many of them are clearly not happy about it. I believe uupc is sent around to encourage electronic mail, not to replace existing pc bboards. This message is not to imply that pcs are good or bad. It is intended to correct obvious historical inaccuracies and delusions. ---rick
ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) (05/13/88)
In article <111@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: > In article <1559@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: > > This newest version of the PiCnix collection is not currently > > available from any public or private BBS, so you'll see it here > > first! > > first, picnix is a shareware product 1.) many things posted are sharware . . . how about Zmodem?? Why didn't you complain about that?? > secondly, we know what picnix is and another version has already > been posted to usenet recently. 2.) The version posted was old, old, old!! This is the latest and greatest version! I (and I suppose many others) APPRECIATE being updated to the latest versions. > thirdly, the cost of transmitting this product is once again being > borne by the net without their consent, per se. 3.) Oh, bullpoop! If you had been paying attention, a few months ago there was much on this bandwidth about Picnix and many wanting to be updated or trying to find where the author was! > fourthly, the cost of acquiring picnix from a public access site is > minimal. 4.) Fine, I'll send you my minimal bill so you can pay it . . . > fifth, the posters in comp.binaries.ibm.pc don't seem to have the > connectivity to be providing useful services to the net. . . . > . . . are we > really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and > provide nothing in return? 5.) I'm not going to even honor this with a comment. John's one-sided selfishness against pc-clones is really showing through. Besides, who is John and why is he making such a nuisance of himself? > if you missed a part COME AND GET IT YOURSELF! > - john. fine . . . give us your Internet address and we'll all get it . . . OH, you don't have one? Only UUCP . . . hmmmmm, gee, that'll cost MONEY. And since we NNTP our news from another site (which DOESN'T cost MONEY) I think the choice is obvious . . . Flames to /dev/null . . . no bums allowed! -- Phil Ritzenthaler UUCP :.!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!ritzenth ARPA : ritzenth@andy.bgsu.edu "Remember, OPRAH spelled backwards is HARPO (toot-toot)!" -- Anonymous
joe@tekbspa.UUCP (Joe Angelo) (05/14/88)
in article <111@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) says: | fourthly, the cost of acquiring picnix from a public access site is | minimal. the transmission costs for this package are approximately | $4.00 at 2400bps, and right at $9.00 for 1200bps (figures based on | connection statistics at rpp386) neither of those amounts are too | much to expect an individual to pay. I think a potential answer to unmoderated and moderated newsgroups lies here... someplace. What the net needs is about 5 more uunet.uu.net's to (as one duty) continue being major archive sites (for moderated postings) and to perhaps start being major archive sites for unmoderated postings. Ie: A posting of large sources to an unmoderated group really gets archived on a couple of sites and a control message goes out on the net ... "Blah Blah Blah posted Schmah Schmah Schmah and it's at here here here as file file file." Who knows? Who cares? -- "I'm trying Joe Angelo -- Senior Systems Engineer/Systems Manager to think at Teknekron Software Systems, Palo Alto 415-325-1025 but nothing happens!" uunet!tekbspa!joe -OR- tekbspa!joe@uunet.uu.net
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (05/14/88)
In article <44310@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >In article <435@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM>, miller@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Andy Miller) writes: >> >> Since when has this net been for Unix boxes only. Why the hell would UUPC be >> sent around so many times and supported by usenet members if they were not to >> be allowed to participate???!!! > >Well, "this net" was started EXPLICITLY for Unix boxes. It remained >EXCLUSIVELY for Unix boxes for the first 5 (more or less) years >of its existance. A few years ago, the "pcs" started encroaching on it. > >One should also keep in mind that the Unix boxes (don't you love >anthropomorphism?) are paying the vast majority of the cost of the network. >Currently they tolerate the pc binaries, but many of them are >clearly not happy about it. > >I believe uupc is sent around to encourage electronic mail, not to >replace existing pc bboards. Got it in one! But I did recognize that news and mail go hand in hand. Giving someone the ability to send mail doesn't give them any reason to use electroninic mail unless they have someone to talk to. Giving them news is fun, but less so if they can't participate; so email is useful. I've noticed a definite correlation of mail use to Usenet participation for most pc users. But I'll go on record as stating that at least my main interest in sending out uupc was to increase email connectivity. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (05/16/88)
miller@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Andy Miller) writes: >Personally I know of no other "public access site" where I can get this >software. The net is my PUBLIC access site. Your sitename implies Dayton. I presume that means Dayton, Ohio. I don't have a current list, but I would be *AMAZED* if there weren't at least one or two good IBM PC BBS systems within your local calling area. A local BBS system is a much better "public access site" than Usenet could ever be, will carry much more useful software than Usenet will ever see, and has the distinct advantage of being operated by folks who want to offer the service, and ONLY folks who want to offer the service. >To stop sending files out in c.b.i.p would practically slit my throat. >What do you think c.b.i.p was even created for???!!!! That's a real good question. Presumably, it was to provide access to useful IBM PC programs that the recipients had no other way of acquiring. A little (very little) thought shows this idea to be bogus on its face. Anyone with a PC, a modem, and a telephone has access to all of the PD software they desire, at a maximum cost of $25/month, worst case. There is no good reason that I can see to continue carrying binaries for ANY machine, let alone the machine with the most extensive network of PD software availability in the world. -- 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
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) (05/17/88)
In article <44310@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: } Well, "this net" was started EXPLICITLY for Unix boxes. It remained } EXCLUSIVELY for Unix boxes for the first 5 (more or less) years } of its existance. A few years ago, the "pcs" started encroaching on it. Not really. I started using the net around 1981 or 1982, and back then Bell Labs was using IBM RJE connections to ship news around. As far as content is concerned, the ARPAnet gateways were piping in occasional EMACS code emulating EDT, people were talking about networking and super-computer architectures that certainly weren't UNIX, and for that matter the precursors to talk.politics were hardly UNIX-related. UNIX has always been a major focus, but it's never been all there was. } I believe uupc is sent around to encourage electronic mail, not to } replace existing pc bboards. It's big advantage is it lets MS-DOS users join the real world, though writing a kermit-protocol for uucp might accomplish the same thing. One problem with the PC-BBS world is that it's so fragmented, though FidoNet is better than the standalone BBSs. In <4577@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes } Binaries are very hard to maintain and very hard to port. } What good is the last 30 years of progress in software engineering if } we never get the sources? Maintenance is always the largest cost of } any piece of software. Binaries are just throwaways; change CPU or OS } and toss 'em. Don't tell me an IBM PC binary good today will be good } forever...I know better. How many binary programs from PC-DOS 1.0 I agree, source is nice, though the ideal might be source plus binary. But there are two real uses for software - doing things and understanding how they're done. I don't care much about MS-DOS innards, and when I use a PC, I'm using it as a tool - a portable place to do fast editing and lightweight calculation and graphics that I can ship to my real machine where I can do real work. I generally don't need source for desk accessories, DOS emulations of UNIX commands, etc., and to use source I'd need to get a hard disk and a compiler (compilers are cheap, but does anyone know where to find a hard disk for a Toshiba 1100+ ?). Yes, binaries are throwaways, but so is MS-DOS. -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs # skep2 is a local machine I'm trying to turn into a server. Please send # mail to ho95c or ho95e instead. Thanks.
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (05/17/88)
In article <44310@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >One should also keep in mind that the Unix boxes (don't you love >anthropomorphism?) are paying the vast majority of the cost of the network. >Currently they tolerate the pc binaries, but many of them are >clearly not happy about it. Perhaps so, but the Unix box this msg was sent from is owned by a billion dollar company whose most important product (which I work on) gets a great deal of benefit from the PC groups. I personally would scream long and loud if anything happened to them. And I am sure my boss would back me up. -- Make Japan the 51st state! I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com
haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (05/17/88)
when one considers the cost to transmit the 770K PSPICE and 417K PICNIX postings, plus the various other ones whose size i didn't count, every member of the net was slapped with what amounts to a big $$$ charge for what other writers, notably john gilmore and bill stewart, have refered to as throwaways. certainly in a vacuum PSPICE and PICNIX would be of such a great value that the distribution costs would be tolerable. however, such a vacuum does not exist and these goodies do in fact exist in other forms and from other sourcs. duplicating THAT effort, i.e., the distribution itself, is wasted energy. while the content may indeed be very useful, which for PICNIX i will conceed quite readily, broadcasting megabytes of data is an inefficient distribution method, cost wise. providing pointers to the binaries would seem far more productive and far less expensive to the USENET community. since middle february i have been providing some collection of the more popular source postings for anonymous uucp. while the initial costs were high to me, the monthly expense of maintaining an ever increasing collection of connections, anonymous and otherwise, is very small. furthermore, all of the users accessing the system are required to pay their own way. there are no ``hidden'' costs being exploited or overlooked. what i see on my phone bill, and what they see on theirs is the sum total of the expense. more sites of this nature are needed, along with a means of coordinating this new network. USENET may well be the most effective tool at hand for distributing information pertaining to non-Unix software. already a newsgroup heirarchy exists for this purpose. the pubnet distribution is extremely underutilized but would seem to be The Place for such information to collect. before more posters claim USENET as their local BBS, how about seeing some interest in pubnet? persons interested in pubnet feeds should contact myself or someone else in their area who is receiving pubnet. - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :DOMAIN "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) (05/18/88)
In article <21649@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: > Perhaps so, but the Unix box this msg was sent from is owned by a > billion dollar company whose most important product (which I work on) > gets a great deal of benefit from the PC groups. I used to recommend that we buy AMD products, but I suspect that will no longer be true. Buying products from a company so shaky that it has to rely on comparatively free USENET to obtain software... I used to wonder why Sun was still shipping its workstations with (mostly) the trashy Intel ethernet chip, instead of the (seemingly) much nicer AMD chip. Now I think I understand. kre
pleasant@porthos.rutgers.edu (Mel Pleasant) (05/18/88)
In article <21649@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: > Perhaps so, but the Unix box this msg was sent from is owned by a billion > dollar company whose most important product (which I work on) gets a great > deal of benefit from the PC groups. I personally would scream long and loud > if anything happened to them. And I am sure my boss would back me up. I'm given to understand that the appropriate way to scream long and loud is for those sites affected in a negative way to band together and FORM NEW LINKS. Another alternative is to recreate the groups in the alt distribution. If there is a fear that some other distribution may ultimately cut the groups in the same manner, form your own new toplevel. If your boss (and your bean counters) are really in your camp, then all of the choices above should seem quite reasonable to them. On the other hand, if your boss and bean counters aren't willing to fork out the bucks for the activity, then I'll claim you haven't quite got the support you think you have. You can always tell when a bean counter is supporting you. Ultimately, his yardstick is the bottom line. -- Mel Pleasant {backbone}!rutgers!pleasant pleasant@rutgers.edu mpleasant@zodiac.bitnet
sys_ms@bmc1.uu.se (05/19/88)
In article <44310@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>, rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: > In article <435@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM>, miller@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (Andy Miller) writes: >> > Well, "this net" was started EXPLICITLY for Unix boxes. It remained > EXCLUSIVELY for Unix boxes for the first 5 (more or less) years > of its existance. A few years ago, the "pcs" started encroaching on it. And here is a VMS VMS VMS VMS VMS machine. They have just started to encroach on YOUR network bandwith. -Mats ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And we have no automatic utility to generate these funny trailers...
pinard@odyssee.UUCP (Francois Pinard) (05/19/88)
In article <111@pigs.UUCP>, naugj@pigc.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: In article <1559@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: > Total 33 522398 21% 417156 I actually have several complaints with picnix being distributed on the net. Even if several of your five (5) complaints are quite reasonable, to my own feelings you are going a little far: Thirdly, [...] comp.binaries.ibm.pc was agreed upon as a moderated group. for dick flagan to spend $2,500 of the net's money at the push of a button is WRONG. Rahul will have sometimes to decide what is Good and what is Wrong, and surely some people will not agree and will get upset. He might even get flamed. He has all my sympathy. Fifth, [...] who is dick flagan? and did anyone notice that the site which transmitted the code was a uupc site? So what, my friend! Is there anything wrong to be less known that Rahul? Is someone useless because s/he uses UUPC? Are we really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and provide nothing in return? Ouh, la la! Let us be a little more peaceful. I'm sure that Dick Flanagan had the impression of doing something Good when he posted Picnix, and certainly several others netters do think Dick contributed something useful for them by posting Picnix. You may disagree with him or them, of course, you may even be right. But you judge that Mr. Flanagan does not contribute anything to the net, and this could be perceived as an irrespectful thought. I would add, to be complete, that Dick Flanagan often write to the net and, despite the fact that I do not read it all (:-), no negative impression is attached yet to his name in my mind. It could well be that Mr. Flanagan indeed contributes to the net, in his own ways; as I am trying to contribute my little part myself by writing this note. Let us try to live, and communicate, in peaceful ways: no flames, please. -- ------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------ Francois Pinard "Vivement C.P. 886, L'Epiphanie (Qc), Canada J0K 1J0 pinard@odyssee.uucp GNU!" (514)588-4656; Odyssee R.A.: (514)279-0716 ------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------ -- ------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------ Francois Pinard "Vivement C.P. 886, L'Epiphanie (Qc), Canada J0K 1J0 pinard@odyssee.uucp GNU!" (514)588-4656; Odyssee R.A.: (514)279-0716 ------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (05/21/88)
In article <2127@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes: >I used to recommend that we buy AMD products, but I suspect that will no >longer be true. Buying products from a company so shaky that it has >to rely on comparatively free USENET to obtain software... It's not just or even mainly the binaries groups, I learn a lot from the comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc groups, just you may learn from unix-wizards or comp.arch. That doesn't make a company shaky. In fact, we are profitable and have a good cash reserve in the bank too. But I don't think this is the place to discuss this. -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com
terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one) (05/28/88)
In article <2197@bgsuvax.UUCP>, ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes: > In article <111@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > In article <1559@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: > > > This newest version of the PiCnix collection is not currently > > > available from any public or private BBS, so you'll see it here > > > first! > > > > first, picnix is a shareware product > > 1.) many things posted are sharware . . . how about Zmodem?? Why didn't you > complain about that?? Zmodem is generally useful to the people bearing the cost of acquiring it. Simply the fact that it is written in C, available in source form, and deals with communications makes it a useful item. > 2.) The version posted was old, old, old!! This is the latest and greatest > version! I (and I suppose many others) APPRECIATE being updated to the > latest versions. Shareware is generally provided such that a "registration fee" will get you an update to the most recent version. If you are so "appreciative", you most certainly would register your copy and pay the fee. While I agree that it is no less or more intrinsically deserving of retransmission, John makes some valid points. > > thirdly, the cost of transmitting this product is once again being > > borne by the net without their consent, per se. This is an incorrect statement. It is always possible to drop a newsgroup. A very small amount of creative programming can easily disallow lumps over a certain limit... of course, an equally small amout of creative posting would get around this. > > fifth, the posters in comp.binaries.ibm.pc don't seem to have the > > connectivity to be providing useful services to the net. > . > . > . > > . . . are we > > really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and > > provide nothing in return? > > 5.) I'm not going to even honor this with a comment. John's one-sided > selfishness against pc-clones is really showing through. Besides, who > is John and why is he making such a nuisance of himself? I will. Apparently, John is upset that the destination has nothing to do with any intermediate interests, yet it bears the transport cost. This is intrinsic in any tree-structured system... take trees, for instance. The trunk transports all materials to the leaves. In this instance, John simply points out that the leaves are costing the trunk without the benefits normally derived, if my analogy were to be taken to it's conclusion. While it is accepted that a portion of the bandwidth is taken up by things of no interest to those carrying them, I think the backbone and branch sites (where I am at now is a leaf; however the company I work at operates a branch site) have been more than generous in accepting such a small percentage of bandwith dedicated to their interests. "selfishness" is justified when there is personal cost involved and no personal benefit; in addition, you yourself agreed that picnix is a shareware product. Usenet's primary stated goal is the disemination of information and as a forum for discussion. Software distribution is a sideline, and, to me, it seems that a single company using a great deal of bandwidth for dissemination of their software in order to save themselves money is selfishness. I agree that the cost would be difficult to collect, but I believe the company owes the net something; if the sole purpose of distribution over the net was not intentended to generate revenue for the company (exteremely doubtful), then the brunt of the cost should be assesed from thos who are benefitiing: payment for service rendered. The software, is, after all, shareware. The idea is that you pay for it; that you choose to get your copy through usenet rather than 'standard' liscencing/distribution channels is your option. > fine . . . give us your Internet address and we'll all get it . . . OH, you > don't have one? Only UUCP . . . hmmmmm, gee, that'll cost MONEY. And since > we NNTP our news from another site (which DOESN'T cost MONEY) I think the > choice is obvious . . . But it does cost someone money somewhere, and that's the point. It is highly likely that it cost John some bucks, considering that he is apparently annoyed. Your selfishness is in making John pay for it rather than paying for it yourself... after all, you're benefitting. Admittedly, a not inconsiderable number of people have benefitted downstream of John, so the cost vs. number of people benefited is low, the cost has NOT been distributed equally among the beneficiaries. It is similar to expecting John to make 5 percentof the car payments for 20 people and then saying "well, he's only paying for one car". 1) John derives no benefit. 2) The company derives ome benefit (their product is distributed), but this is greatly offset by the number of people who will not update as a result. 3) You benefit 1) John pays the freight. 2) The company pays in oportunity cost 3) You pay no cost (other than flames). As bandwidth increases, as it inevitably will, leaf nodes will have to expect to bear some of the burden for the financial costs of sending what they receive... this is only logical; whether this will "kill" Usenet as currently formulated remains to be seen. Possible soloutions already exist; a number of "public access" UNIX systems charge connect fees for their use. Perhaps this will increase in the future. Until that time, however, this will still remain a bone of contention as the more verbose groups which are not of interest to the backbone or branch sites are limited or dropped. terry@wsccs