webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/01/87)
In article <8225@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... > Please be advised that unless you have the consent of the moderator for this, > which I've seen no indication of, utzoo reserves the right to discard such > falsely-moderated messages. We strongly support the moderated groups and do > not want to see them destroyed by holier-than-thou bozos who believe it is > their God-given right to post anywhere they please. The message you are replying to specifically mentioned that it was always assumed that some people would choose not to carry some things. Indeed, I was quite surprised when I found out that the stuff you all call `Facist mode' doesn't work for stuff that isn't locally created. Certainly it should and doubtless soon it will. [Incidently, your situation had alot to do with why I announced that Distribution usa would be used instead of Distribution na. Some Canadians thought they were experiancing typical American nearsightedness when I made that announcement. Hopefully the new net ombudsman (weemba@berkeley.edu) will understand the significance of such actions. > If you think that an unmoderated group deserves to exist on a particular > topic, start one. A newsgroup, not a mailing list. Carried on your own > uucp links, not the existing backbone, so that *YOU* are paying for it. > [needless vulgarity edited]. This is basically the classic `love it or leave it' arguement that people have used since the beginning of time to act as if they somehow owned the status quo and everyone was freeloading off them. No one site or even a group of sites as large as the `backbone' has the resources to supply any aspect of net news as a free service to all the thousands of sites on the net. This net would not exist without the efforts of a great number of people -- including the posters who thanklessly supply the flow for the networking people to experiment with managing. Currently there is no notion within Usenet of what constitutes due process for agreeing to an action because every site maintains the right to completely ignore any action it wishes. Well the flip side of this is that every user maintains the right to make whatever action he wishes and let the sites handle it as they may. Currently, neither party exercises these rights much since it would result in a chaos that neither wants. However, over time there are bound to be disagreements with regards to what constitutes proper actions. When this happens all parties have two choices, they can run around and rant and rave or they can communicate and try to resolve the issues involved. While the tendency of some backbone sites to rant and rave and threaten sometimes makes it seem like it would be easier to just stop using the news system at all, the usenet is such a wonderful idea that it seems a shame to abandon it. > (Among your other services to the community, you've probably delayed the > release of C News a little bit, because Geoff and I need to put our heads > together on what can be done about better security for moderated groups.) This is real good. I definitely favour improved security and quotas for controlling the flow of news. I have had many discussions with people about what can be done and it looks to me like you can get a level of security comparable to the security of a person's login password on a typical unix system -- i.e., too easy to be worth breaking, but hard enough so that it isn't broken casually. Of course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty. This would yield a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues of the old Usenet. Of course, as always, connectivity would be a problem. Of course this is completely different from the `alternative backbone' silliness that I find quite incomprehensible. Incidently, it is the lack of the above kinds of controls that I believe has put the backbone in its current position of trying to ad hocly control everything from a subjective point of view -- leading to such silliness as confusing the question of moderation with the question of whether or not a particular discussion category is needed. ------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) (07/01/87)
In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >Of >course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to >make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would >be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty. This would yield >a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues >of the old Usenet. Of course, as always, connectivity would be a >problem. My initial reaction was to ignore the message. But I'll play Devil's advocate. Let me try to understand your "WEBBERnews" scheme. I will take the position of a net worshiper who listens to his net-gods - who have wisely decided that WEBBERnews is the proper direction. I will also assume that Bob Webber has everyone's gratitude for writing WEBBERnews himself. Now you tell me: I have to maintain two different news facilities simultaneously. This means duplicate spool directories, executables, news readers, etc. Twice as much work, plus potentially twice as much disk space, etc. My Reaction: Well, that is a lot of extra work. But the gods say it must be worth it. You tell me: No articles from USENET appear in WEBBERnews. My Reaction: Well, it would be faster if there were no articles. By the way, how did you test out WEBBERnews? How long have you been using it and under what conditions have you tested it? (assuming there is no compatibility with Rev B news) Oh, I see. You haven't *really* tested it. You tell me: No article in WEBBERnews appears in USENET. My Reaction: Okay - let me get this straight. We have these two different bulletin board systems, each with different newsgroups, conversation chains, kill files, etc. I would need two different news readers, archivers, etc. Everyone is using the old system, and *magically* everyone starts using WEBBERnews, because there are no articles posted. I think I am lost already. You tell me: The two news systems are incompatible. That is - they store news in different formats, reside in different directories, use different means of receiving/sending news, keep track of duplicate articles using different systems. Therefore we need two different sets of inews, mail forwarding systems, history files, etc. My Reaction: Boy! Bob - you must be some hotshot programmer! How many years did you spend doing this? You might tell me: The good stuff would be posted to both groups. Especially sources. But since WEBBERnews and USENET are incompatible, this would mean duplicate copies of all of the large postings. And since WEBBERnews doesn't have the silly moderated distinction, it will be bigger and cost more than old Rev B. And I would have to support BOTH during the conversion. My Reaction: So now I have to handle potentially twice as much news as the old system. Well, my system is at capacity. I can't double the resources handling news. How am I going to convert over? As for sources, if they are good, they will be posted to both groups. If they are CR*P, only WEBBERnews has it. You tell me: At such-a-date, everyone will stop using USENET and start using WEBBERnews. My Reaction: To quote Bugs Bunny: What A Maroon! When is Rev C going to be ready? I need to reduce the load on my CPU. [ p.s. Gene - you are doing a GREAT JOB! ] >Of course this is completely different from the `alternative >backbone' silliness that I find quite incomprehensible. >------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) Yes, Bob - it is a different approach. Mr. Webber, I find YOU "quite incomprehensible" -- "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -- Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP)
amos@nsta.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (07/01/87)
This is the way the moderation battle has been going on, as viewed from
here - a non-bb, but paying, site:
Problem: The sources group (there was only one In the Beginning) becomes
too big, bb sites who pay the bill are threatened with discontinued
service if this goes on.
Solution: Use the moderation mechanism. (Which was originally designed to enable
sites and users with limited time and communication resources to participate
in the net anyway).
A new Problem: Webber's suggestion anulls any attempt to use moderated
groups to reduce net traffic. Back to square one.
The new solution: If this catches on, the friendly bb administrators
will have to put Webber in their global kill files to try and stop
this nonsense. Unfriendly ones will just have to stop propagating
these groups altogether. (Actually, Weemba's volunteering as an 'ombudsman'
makes the former easier, since the Brahms Gang is in many admins' kill
files already).
What I did not understand from Webber's latest article is what he suggests
as a solution to the net traffic problems (he does not seem to be fond
of the 'alternate backbone' idea). Another thing: if he calls for
communication, why didn't he discuss his idea with the moderators and
bb admins first to find out *why* they manage the bb the way they do?
--
Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. (972)52-522261
amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 Nroy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/02/87)
In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > This net would not exist without the efforts of a great number of > people -- including the posters who thanklessly supply the flow for > the networking people to experiment with managing. What an interesting idea; usenet is nothing but an experiment in teleconferencing (at least partially true) and we all owe a vote of thanks to those noble souls who provide us with research material! Let's try an analogy. Here at the Public Health Research Institute, we expend a significant fraction of our effort studying AIDS. Clearly, if AIDS didn't exist, some of our researchers would be out of a job. Come to think of it, since some of those researchers pay my salary, I might be out of a job too. So, it's in my best interest to make sure AIDS spreads as fast as possible. I think I'll send some unsafe-sex articles to sci.med.aids. Nah, the moderator probably wouldn't post them. But wait, I could always appeal to the net ombudsman to post them for me, couldn't I! As Eric Idle once said, "What a stupid concept!" -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/02/87)
> The message you are replying to specifically mentioned that it was > always assumed that some people would choose not to carry some things. Unfortunately, it is *precisely* the moderated groups that we *want* to carry... so long as they truly are moderated. From our viewpoint, you are basically proposing to destroy their usefulness. > > [needless vulgarity edited]. You should have seen what the vulgarities looked like before I edited them... You are doing a very bad, very egocentric, very destructive thing that will be of immense harm to Usenet. Believe it or not, this is not the same net it was several years ago, and there is no way to turn back the clock. > Currently, neither party exercises these rights much since it would > result in a chaos that neither wants... And you are doing your level best to change this. > ... I definitely favour improved security and quotas > for controlling the flow of news... Quotas, as you have been told repeatedly in private mail, are unworkable nonsense. Improved security carries a heavy price, but is looking necessary. > ... it looks to me like you can get a > level of security comparable to the security of a person's login > password on a typical unix system -- i.e., too easy to be worth > breaking, but hard enough so that it isn't broken casually... We are aiming at a somewhat higher level of security, specifically one that is good enough that Bob Webber in particular will not be able to routinely break it even if he tries. This is unfortunately a lot of work, both for us and for the software, and we would have preferred to avoid it. Alas, due to some shortsighted actions, both by the backbone and by certain individuals (notably you), the consensus that has kept Usenet running smoothly is starting to break down. > ... my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to > make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would > be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty... We see nothing terribly wrong with being compatible with the existing setup. There isn't anything really wrong with it except that it doesn't scale well to really large user communities. We have thought a great deal about this, and our conclusion is that the only long-term solution is 100% moderation. However, it seems worthwhile to speed up traffic handling anyway. > This would yield > a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues > of the old Usenet... What you're suggesting, as I understand it, is deliberate incompatibility specifically aimed at forcing most existing sites off the network. You have not explained why (a) the same thing would not happen to the new network after a year or two, and (b) how this is consistent with your disparaging comments about the "alternate backbone" concept. > ...such silliness as confusing the question of moderation with the > question of whether or not a particular discussion category is needed. Let us not mention such silliness as confusing the desire to see new groups moderated with unwillingness to create them. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (07/03/87)
In article <8235@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > Alas, due > to some shortsighted actions, both by the backbone and by certain individuals > (notably you), the consensus that has kept Usenet running smoothly is > starting to break down. No, sorry Henry. I don't think you can blame the demise on any one individual or group. The net is going through another major growing pain. The size has gone critical. Hell, from one standpoint, I'd call utzoo a broken cog. The only reasonable argument I got against arbitrary newsgroup creation was that 16 bit machines can't hack lots of groups. In fact, the problem is really that 16 bit "BACKBONE" machines can't hack it. Leaf sites are only constrained by the groups they actually receive. So isn't it time that utzoo gave up that hallowed position? In fact, isn't it time to start the total phaseout of the backbone completely? UUNET can provide a total feed for about $200/month. Several UUNET's can supply the whole network with a new backbone. Let's move on. Forget Stargate. Nice name, lousy rules. Forget the backbone. Nice start, lousy rules. -- Rick Richardson, President, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 834-1378 (voice, days) seismo!uunet!pcrat!rick
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/03/87)
> When is Rev C going to be ready? I need to reduce the load on my CPU.
"We's a-gettin' there." Soon.
--
Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henrymichael@stb.UUCP (Michael) (07/04/87)
Keywords: In article <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> barnett@steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) writes: >In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >>Of >>course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to >>make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would >>be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty. This would yield >>a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues >>of the old Usenet. Of course, as always, connectivity would be a >>problem. > >My initial reaction was to ignore the message. But I'll play Devil's >advocate. And let me play Angel's Friend :-) >Let me try to understand your "WEBBERnews" scheme. >I will take the position of a net worshiper who listens to his >net-gods - who have wisely decided that WEBBERnews is the proper direction. >I will also assume that Bob Webber has everyone's gratitude for >writing WEBBERnews himself. And I will be a small site administrator (which I am) >Now you tell me: > I have to maintain two different news facilities simultaneously. > This means duplicate spool directories, executables, news readers, etc. > Twice as much work, plus potentially twice as much disk space, etc. Hmm...sounds an awful like the 2.9 to 2.10 conversion. But then, 2.10.3 and 2.11 handle mod groups somewhat differently, and pre 2.10 didn't at all >My Reaction: > Well, that is a lot of extra work. But the gods say it must be > worth it. > >You tell me: > No articles from USENET appear in WEBBERnews. > >My Reaction: > Well, it would be faster if there were no articles. > By the way, how did you test out WEBBERnews? How long have you > been using it and under what conditions have you tested it? (assuming > there is no compatibility with Rev B news) Oh, I see. You > haven't *really* tested it. Oh? How long was 2.11 tested? How long/heavy will C news be tested? Seriously, I'd be suprised if more than a dozen sites checked 2.11, or if more than 30 are checking out C. You don't need more. >You tell me: > No article in WEBBERnews appears in USENET. > >My Reaction: > Okay - let me get this straight. We have these two different > bulletin board systems, each with different newsgroups, > conversation chains, kill files, etc. I would need two > different news readers, archivers, etc. Everyone is using the > old system, and *magically* everyone starts using WEBBERnews, > because there are no articles posted. 2 different news readers? You mean vn, vnews, rn, rnews (er, readnews)? You mean emacs? And how did you get your users to stop using 2.9 and start using 2.10? Obviously, you just declare by fiat--chmod -x old.rn; chmod +x new.rn > I think I am lost already. I think so too. >You tell me: > The two news systems are incompatible. That is - they store news > in different formats, reside in different directories, use > different means of receiving/sending news, keep track of duplicate > articles using different systems. Therefore we need two different > sets of inews, mail forwarding systems, history files, etc. Gee, sounds like nntp >My Reaction: > Boy! Bob - you must be some hotshot programmer! How many years > did you spend doing this? "Oh, three or four" :-) >You might tell me: > The good stuff would be posted to both groups. Especially > sources. But since WEBBERnews and USENET are incompatible, this > would mean duplicate copies of all of the large postings. > And since WEBBERnews doesn't have the silly moderated distinction, > it will be bigger and cost more than old Rev B. And I would have > to support BOTH during the conversion. Gee. Good stuff is posted to both alt.sources, net.sources, comp.sources.misc. again, you don't support both; you just switch, and make the old one "read only". As it expires at the normal rate, you start getting the new one. If a date is given well in advance for everyone to know about, then the old groups turn off say, a week before hand, and afterwards people use the new groups. >My Reaction: > So now I have to handle potentially twice as much news as the old > system. Well, my system is at capacity. I can't double the > resources handling news. How am I going to convert over? > As for sources, if they are good, they will be posted to > both groups. If they are CR*P, only WEBBERnews has it. One man's CR*P is anothers godsend. I can do without all those 4.3 only, can't possibly be converted to a non-soccet, non-X-windows, non-sun machines cr*p. Because to me (on a SYS3 non-bitmapped) they are cr*p. >You tell me: > At such-a-date, everyone will stop using USENET and start using > WEBBERnews. Right. >My Reaction: > To quote Bugs Bunny: What A Maroon! > When is Rev C going to be ready? I need to reduce the load on my CPU. > >[ p.s. Gene - you are doing a GREAT JOB! ] > >>Of course this is completely different from the `alternative >>backbone' silliness that I find quite incomprehensible. >>------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) > >Yes, Bob - it is a different approach. > >Mr. Webber, I find YOU "quite incomprehensible" > >-- >"Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I think you just did :-) >-- >Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP) Michael Gersten -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Monsters from outta space -- 3-11-2
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (07/04/87)
In article <353@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >In article <8235@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >UUNET can provide a total feed for about $200/month. Several UUNET's >can supply the whole network with a new backbone. > Someone has finally figured out the net god's insidious plan :-) Actually, I was wondering how many UUNET's it would take. In the original posting Rick Adams mentioned that it could handle 25 simultaneous connections (uucico). This should be able support over 100 and full feed connections. Probably more with appropriate hardware upgrades. There are two alternatives. Multiple UUNETS. Or simply use one UUNET as a hub to connect the existing backbone sites who become regional distribution points. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (07/06/87)
> Actually, I was wondering how many UUNET's it would take. In the original > posting Rick Adams mentioned that it could handle 25 simultaneous > connections (uucico). This should be able support over 100 and full feed > connections. Probably more with appropriate hardware upgrades. In theory, the UUNET machine can support 4 56 kbps lines. Thats about 100 simultaneous 2400 bps connections (200 1200 bps connections). It seems that 1 32032 processor can handle 2.5 uucico's, so the balance 21000 would max out at about 70 uucicos. However, upgrading to the new 386 based processors should provide enough CPU to find some other bottleneck. Basically, there is a hell of a lot of growth potential in the current system before it would "have" to be split into several machines. (It might be "desirable" to split it before that.) So, the current UUNET machine could theoretically be expanded to support about 10% of the known USENET machines. ---rick
ado@elsie.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <8245@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > When is Rev C going to be ready? I need to reduce the load on my CPU. > > "We's a-gettin' there." Soon. > -- > Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry The Moon must wait--there's unfinished business on Earth. :-) -- UUCP: ..seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.CSS.GOV Elsie and Ado are trademarks of Borden, Inc. and Ampex.