jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) (02/02/90)
Over the last few years, it has come to the point where the USENET is
expanding beyond its original non-commercial groups whose articles
were considered public domain and free. New news hierarchies have
appeared when conflicts arose. When USENET prohibited commercial
postings, "biz" showed up. When USENET proclaimed "democracy" and
rules, "alt" split out. And when USENET discouraged copyright news
articles, ClariNet appeared.
Of course, there have also been alternate hierarchies that have never
been associated with USENET proper; for instance, internal company
networks.
I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the
usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there
couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own
subject, rules, and distribution.
Unfortunately, the fact that the USENET was the first on the network, and
that it is the majority in both number and volume of articles on the network,
creates the awkward situation of USENET consisting of seven top-level groups
(comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk), while other "lesser" networks are
composed of a top-level name with their newsgroups beneath it. This creates
the illusion that "USENET is the network," where in fact it is only a part
of it. Due to this illusion, when a new, non-USENET news hierarchy is
added to the network, the USENET people scream that the new hierarchy is
polluting their name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning
an uncool operating system.
I would like to make a few suggestions for handling this situation:
1. Put all existing true-USENET groups (comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci,
and talk) under the top-level name "usenet." This would separate
USENET from other hierarchies, reducing arguments, misunderstandings,
copyright violations, etc. This is obviously a major suggestion,
possibly even more wide-scale than the Great Renaming from "net.*" groups
into what we currently have.
2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy. The following groups
(plus, of course, all the "real" groups of the hierarchy) would be
recommended under each news hierarchy:
admin.groups # discussion of new and current groups
admin.config # network configuration of hierarchy
admin.stats # statistics of various types for this hierarchy
announce # general announcements for the hierarchy
newusers # instructions for new users of the hierarchy
test # test messages
3. In accordance to item #2, rename the USENET "news" groups not just to
"usenet.news.*" but to "usenet.admin.*". Rename the current "news.admin"
to something else. This will also help fix the occasional problem of
new users thinking that "news" means headline news, rather than
USENET administration.
4. Encourage the use and exchange of non-USENET hierarchies by compiling
a News Hierarchy Registry listing various details of each hierarchy,
including groups in hierarchy, contact information, average traffic flow,
and so on. Registration of a hierarchy would work somewhat like the
current UUCP map registration, where registration, while not required,
is encouraged for reducing name conflicts. Even proprietary hierarchies,
like "sun.*", could be registered, but would not be available to the
public. The maintainer of the Registry would be some person on any
of the well-connected networks. The contents of the Registry would
be posted periodically to some particular newsgroup in any hierarchy
that wished to receive the information.
What do people think about this proposal? I know that some of it might
prove unworkable, at least right now, like putting all the USENET groups
into "usenet.*". On the other hand, the News Hierarchy Registry would be
useful even if nothing else was changed. It could be started immediately,
and would include all the current hierarchies. I am willing to be the
initial maintainer of such a Registery.
--
John Labovitz Domain: jsl@barn.com Phone: 707/823-2919
Barn Communications UUCP: ..!pacbell!barn!jslhenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/06/90)
In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: >I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the >usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there >couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own >subject, rules, and distribution. Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed hierarchies: the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already getting ridiculous. Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. This is already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it will be an administrative nightmare. We need to discourage this silly empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into the existing structure. This may well require some changes in rules; in particular, some sort of procedure for delegating name-space management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just *have* to have their own hierarchy. (My opinion is that they are usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.) >... when a new, non-USENET news hierarchy is >added to the network, the USENET people scream that the new hierarchy is >polluting their name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning >an uncool operating system. Actually, the usual scream is "oh #@#@%$, not *another* pinhead who wants his own little empire for some ridiculous reason!". I've never heard anyone complain about polluting the name space, conflicting with rules, *or* mentioning an uncool operating system -- can you cite references? (*Expanding* the namespace and *polluting* it are not the same thing.) > 1. Put all existing true-USENET groups (comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci, > and talk) under the top-level name "usenet." This would separate > USENET from other hierarchies, reducing arguments, misunderstandings, > copyright violations, etc... Again, please cite references and explain in detail how this would help us a whole bunch. I don't see *any* benefits to make up for the headaches the transition would cause. The existing setup doesn't confuse anyone except the occasional beginner, who will just find different issues to be confused about. And what on Earth does this have to do with copyright violations?? Frankly, suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome. ("We can't call it comp.unix.questions, that's not descriptive enough -- technology.computers.software.operatingsystems.posixcompliant.unix.questions is what we need.") If it's not broken, don't fix it. > 2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy... Why? The dominant feature of most of the "alternate" hierarchies is a firm desire to run things *their* way, not ours. > 4. Encourage the use and exchange of non-USENET hierarchies by compiling > a News Hierarchy Registry listing various details of each hierarchy, As explained above, I'd say we want to *discourage* more silly growth at the top level. It serves no useful purpose and just creates problems. Avoiding problems is better than solving them. -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (02/06/90)
In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: | I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the | usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there | couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own | subject, rules, and distribution. henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | [...] We need to discourage this silly | empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into | the existing structure. This may well require some changes in rules; | in particular, some sort of procedure for delegating name-space | management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just | *have* to have their own hierarchy. (My opinion is that they are | usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.) This isn't an "adminstrative" issue at all, except that news back in the early days confused user interface with distribution hierarchy. The "great renaming" mad things somewhat more sane, but the proliferation of top-level groups is starting to drive us cazy again. If you want to have a hierarchy, have exactly one, and have it understandable and predicatble: its for people to **use**, after all. If there are parallel groups with different distributions,make them into parallell groups or even parallel chains in the same group. Don't distort what could be a predicatble structure for the convenience of the transport medium's administrators. Or the inconvenience, as Henry argues. Hide the transport issues from the user agent: the user doesn't need irrelevant issues getting in the way of his understanding. --dave [p.s. Henry: how about a two-way mapping in the transport agent to allow user-interface issues to not affect transport (:-)) -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/06/90)
I don't know, Henry. If the extra hierarchies are well organised a little
splitting would help a lot. Moving much of the comp.sys.* stuff over to
something like micro.* or comp.pc.* would cut down Ferranti's sys file a
whole lot.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
/ \
\_.--._/ I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (02/06/90)
In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own subject, rules, and distribution. ...the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already getting ridiculous. Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. Call it fine-grained control, with easier distinctions (and shorter sys lines) than saying ...,pheugh,!pheugh.all,pheugh.barre,!pheugh.barre.all,... Folks who blindly request a `full feed' can just say "...,all,..." and not think about it any more than they do now. This is already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it will be an administrative nightmare. We need to discourage this silly empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into the existing structure. This may well require some changes in rules; Not just rules, but the cultural paradigms they embody as well. ...some sort of procedure for delegating name-space management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just *have* to have their own hierarchy... Proposals? We already have a delegation procedure, at the top level of the heirarchy. (My opinion is that they are usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.) Until there is a finer grained name-space delegation procedure that's easily managed and comprehended, it is a significant issue. ...suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome... Right. 2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy... Why? The dominant feature of most of the "alternate" hierarchies is a firm desire to run things *their* way, not ours. Right. Those who want to go to the trouble can look at already exists and what already works, pick and choose, and adopt what they like for their own purposes. It's a very gentle, distributed process of self-determination. Those that don't work quietly wither on the vine. 4. Encourage the use and exchange of non-USENET hierarchies by compiling a News Hierarchy Registry listing various details of each hierarchy, That's already done with Spaf's List of Alternative Heirarchies. As explained above, I'd say we want to *discourage* more silly growth at the top level. It serves no useful purpose and just creates problems. Avoiding problems is better than solving them. If a group of people wants to run a news heirarchy their way, why force them to fold into the mainstream Usenet and run things our way? Enforced conformity doesn't avoid problems, it causes them (consider Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia!). I sure wouldn't want to try to force the Usenet to conform to (e.g.) Stallman's or Sexton's or MES' vision of what the world should be like! For example: In discussions of upcoming cross-cultural encounters (GEnie/Usenet, FIDO/Usenet, Compu$erve/Usenet, etc.) it is often pointed out that in each case the two should be given access to each other, but not forcibly intermixed in each other's forms and forums. Each side of the gateway should be able to clearly see that the new traffic shouldn't be expected to conform to the old rules. This is best accomplished with top-level naming to emphasize the distinction. On the Usenet side, traffic flow can be controlled with distributions but user awareness comes best with group names. (How many average users know whether something is a comp group or an inet group? Do you really want C$'s UNIX forum intermixing with comp.unix.questions?) This isn't just snobbery, it's an aid to understanding why groups of people act the way they do. In due time the BBSers may bring themselves up to Usenet's exalted level of wisdom and rationality of discourse (for the humor impaired: :-) and petition to be admitted fully and truly into the fold, but don't push things too fast. With a few years' practice, I've even begun seeing rational commentary coming from Portal! Convenient creation and propagation of new heirarchies serves useful purposes and solves problems. Don't expect conformity to Usenet's way of running things.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/07/90)
In article <7302@yunexus.UUCP> davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >[p.s. Henry: how about a two-way mapping in the transport agent > to allow user-interface issues to not affect transport (:-)) See the "=" form of the fourth field of the active file in C News! :-) This is a purely local mapping that does not affect transport but does change what the user interface sees. -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/07/90)
In article <5115@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I don't know, Henry. If the extra hierarchies are well organised a little >splitting would help a lot. Moving much of the comp.sys.* stuff over to >something like micro.* or comp.pc.* would cut down Ferranti's sys file a >whole lot. What you're really saying is "get all the garbage I don't want off in a top-level group by itself where I can ignore it", or possibly "get all the good stuff that I do want into one pile so I can pick it up easily". Unfortunately, the definitions of "garbage" and "good stuff" are very site-specific, and what helps one sysadmin will hamper another. -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tp@mccall.uucp (02/07/90)
In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: >>I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the >>usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there >>couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own >>subject, rules, and distribution. > > Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed > hierarchies: the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already > getting ridiculous. I won't say that sysadmin issues are unimportant, but I'd say they are considerably less important than user interface issues. Besides, more hierarchies would SHORTEN the sys file lines for people who want restricted feeds. > Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action > by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes > in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. This is > already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it > will be an administrative nightmare. We need to discourage this silly > empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into > the existing structure. This may well require some changes in rules; > in particular, some sort of procedure for delegating name-space > management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just > *have* to have their own hierarchy. (My opinion is that they are > usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.) Requiring explicit action to carry the group can be perceived as an advantage. Many people want to fold into usenet so they get worldwide distribution, but that obligates you to follow usenet rules. On the other hand, if you have a separate hierarchy with a different set of rules, sysadmins can cut off the feed if they don't like the rules. In otherwords, carrying the hierarchy is tacit agreement to follow the rules of that hierarchy. If you delegated a group within usenet, could you really have an independent set of rules? Remember that your groups are going to people who have only tacitly agreed to usenet rules, and if they didn't see the discussion, may not be aware of what they are carrying. >>... when a new, non-USENET news hierarchy is >>added to the network, the USENET people scream that the new hierarchy is >>polluting their name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning >>an uncool operating system. > > Actually, the usual scream is "oh #@#@%$, not *another* pinhead who wants > his own little empire for some ridiculous reason!". When I created the vmsnet hierarchy, based on postings plus email I received, this was a decidedly minority opinion. > I've never heard > anyone complain about polluting the name space, conflicting with rules, > *or* mentioning an uncool operating system -- can you cite references? You seem to have a short memory. vmsnet was only created a few months ago. I got every one of those complaints. Granted, most of them were from the uninformed. Quite frankly Henry, your complaints (and those who basically agreed with you, or raised related issues), were about the only ones that did make any sense. I'm not saying there isn't more than one side to the issue, and obviously none of the above objections are valid, but they do come up. > Frankly, suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into > a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand > that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome. > ("We can't call it comp.unix.questions, that's not descriptive enough -- > technology.computers.software.operatingsystems.posixcompliant.unix.questions > is what we need.") If it's not broken, don't fix it. Agreed. Besides, there is nothing to say that an alternate hierarchy couldn't expand into more than one hierarchy. And yes, Henry, I do know what you think of that idea. I've also been told that one of the strong reasons this whole idea gets frowned on is that people are worried that if the groups are broken down into smaller sets of related groups, THEIR favorite group might not be deemed important enough to carry net wide. The person(s) expressing this view didn't even want it discussed publicly. I'm not so sure it wouldn't be a good thing. -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/07/90)
In article <1990Feb6.172656.16058@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > What you're really saying is "get all the garbage I don't want off in a > top-level group by itself where I can ignore it", or possibly "get all > the good stuff that I do want into one pile so I can pick it up easily". Well, more or less true. Not quite a fair characterisation, but true. If the piles are well-designed, then it will help more people than it will hinder. It's less important whether the piles are in their own top level hierarchy or are second-level divisions... there are certain natural partitions that aren't currently being used: the mini/workstation versus home computer division, for example, or networks versus serial protocols: should comp.protocols.kermit and comp.protocols.tcpip really be in the same second-level group? And there are groups in .dcom that really do want to go with tcpip. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) (02/07/90)
In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: > >I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the > >usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there > >couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own > >subject, rules, and distribution. > > [...] the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already > getting ridiculous. Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action > by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes > in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. (and then...) > We need to discourage this silly > empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into > the existing structure. Wouldn't this folding of hierarchies *increase* the problem with the sys file? Let's say "gnu.*" is folded into "comp.os.gnu.*". If I didn't care about GNU software, it would take *more* bytes to add "!comp.os.gnu" to my sys file than *not* including "gnu". > [...] some sort of procedure for delegating name-space > management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just > *have* to have their own hierarchy. For some topics, yes. But how do you handle commercial, proprietary, or internal hierarchies? These hierarchies are going to exist no matter what. > I've never heard > anyone complain about polluting the name space, conflicting with rules, > *or* mentioning an uncool operating system -- can you cite references? How about vmsnet? Wasn't there some controversy about this being a UNIX network, not a VMS network? Maybe I'm mis-remembering. And what about Clarinet or biz? Would you want to fold these in as well, they being explicitly commercial hierarchies? And gnu, even though they consider the GNU newsgroups to be their property? It works the other way, too -- are you going to force alt to conform to USENET's guidelines? > > 1. Put all existing true-USENET groups (comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci, > > and talk) under the top-level name "usenet." > > Again, please cite references and explain in detail how this would help > us a whole bunch. It would create a more unified namespace. The top-level name would be the network (alt, gnu, usenet, etc.), somewhat analogous to a publisher of a newspaper or magazine. Whether the "publisher" is a real organization (like clari or gnu) or is an unofficial group of people (like usenet or alt), each hierarchy is governed, more or less, by guidelines set down by the publisher. New hierarchies could be started by organizations who want to have a way of getting their data out there to the rest of the world. For instance, most on-line services like EcoNet, WELL, Portal, etc., have internal hierarchies that might be of interest to people who are not direct users of their systems (I'm talking hardware system here). They could sell a subscription to their hierarchy to sites who wanted it, and expand their base of users. (I have no idea if any of these services are doing this or even want to do this; it's just an example.) > And what on Earth does this have to do with copyright > violations?? Sorry, that was a bad choice of wording. I suppose I was talking mostly about ClariNet and their posting of various news articles versus an individual posting, say, Dave Barry articles to USENET. ClariNet has permission; the individual (usually) does not. > Frankly, suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into > a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand > that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome. It's a one-level change, Henry. I'm *not* suggesting *any* other USENET change (except the possible renaming of "news" to "admin"). I don't care what happens to USENET itself (or any of the other hierarchies, for that matter); the point I'm trying to make is that, believe it or not, there are *other* networks out there, and making the top-level name be the name of the network would make for a more consistent interface. > > 2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy... > > Why? The dominant feature of most of the "alternate" hierarchies is a > firm desire to run things *their* way, not ours. Note the word "recommended." If a new hierarchy doesn't want to have these groups, fine; however, these groups (with the possible exception of test, which someone pointed out to me) have all served their purposes well on USENET. > Avoiding problems is better than solving them. Yes, but solving *current* problems is better than avoiding them. -- John Labovitz Domain: jsl@barn.com Phone: 707/823-2919 Barn Communications UUCP: ..!pacbell!barn!jsl
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (02/09/90)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed >hierarchies: the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already >getting ridiculous. Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action >by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes >in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. This is >already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it >will be an administrative nightmare. I'd much prefer a long line in my sys file to the current glut of stuff in the regular newsgroups. It's not a nuisance, it's a benefit. And you should see the hideous sys file entries for some of our downstream sites with narrow interests. If well-formed well-managed heirarchies can be set up, great. I'd support changes to the name space rules (what, again?) if and only if they involve *truly seperating* the existing heirarchies. Let sci set up their own rules, ditto rec, talk, etc. No more of this crap on {rec,talk,sci,foobar}.{aquaria,objectivism} -- a huge percentage of the fight isn't whether or not to have the group, but where to create it.
wicinski@bill-n-ted.sgi.com (Timothy Wicinski) (02/13/90)
>In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed >hierarchies: the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already >getting ridiculous. Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action >by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes >in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. This is >already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, >it will be an administrative nightmare. We need to discourage this >sillyempire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies >intothe existing structure. This may well requires polluting their >name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning an uncool >operating system. err, you're blowing here dude. besdies the fact the was already pointed out that with expanded hierarchies, people can easily cancel out what they want. And what do you define as "Empire Building"? collecting all hierarchies into current Usenet hierarchies will 1) make the hierarchies have to conform to your (and other net deziens) "policies", and 2) actually be empire-building in it's truest form. You're screaming for a monarchy, with the "so-called" news gods as the leaders, not voted on, just decided "I am a god, therefore you must obey." I don't buy that for a minute. This central idea being promoted here is not bad - ie, how can one tell if a site receives true-blue "Usenet"? well, by definition isn't it news.announce or something like that? that's a real silly way. An easier way would be if a site receives any usenet.* groups, then it will be a part of Usenet. If not (ie, if it receives vmsnet.* and alt.* [one of them being an "uncool operating system"] then it is not part of Usenet, and does not have to follow the "policies of the people". >Again, please cite references and explain in detail how this would help >us a whole bunch. I don't see *any* benefits to make up for the headaches >the transition would cause. The existing setup doesn't confuse anyone >except the occasional beginner, who will just find different issues to >be confused about. And what on Earth does this have to do with copyright >violations?? the transition would be a complete headache, and very painful. is that a reason to ignore it completely? I don't think so (if so, the current transformation from news.* to comp/talk, etc. would have never taken place). Your statement about the "occasional beginner" smacks of the Ivory-tower approach "we had to learn it all from scrath, so shouldn't everyone else?" This means Usenet is not providing a service. perhaps not, but people like uunet are providing a service, and if the service could/would benefit, then it should be made less confusing for beginners. Am i wrong, but aren't biz.* and clarinet.* copyrighted? In article <BOB.90Feb6100433@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >For example: In discussions of upcoming cross-cultural encounters >(GEnie/Usenet, FIDO/Usenet, Compu$erve/Usenet, etc.) it is often >pointed out that in each case the two should be given access to each >other, but not forcibly intermixed in each other's forms and forums. >On the Usenet side, traffic flow can be controlled with distributions >but user awareness comes best with group names. (How many average >users know whether something is a comp group or an inet group? Do you >really want C$'s UNIX forum intermixing with comp.unix.questions?) they shouldn't care, and i don't think this point was really brought up. How many average users know that talk.flame is covered by usenet, and alt.sex is not? If they read the news.announce.newusers, they MIGHT, but can you bet on that? Also your >Each side of the gateway should be able to clearly see that the new >traffic shouldn't be expected to conform to the old rules. This is >best accomplished with top-level naming to emphasize the distinction. YES! Now, if we set up a feed for all of compuserve's stuff, what would it be called?? ...."Compuserve.*" probably (or something similar). But hey, that's a full hierarchy, and Usenet can't empire build with it...Go the other way, how will Usenet be presented to Compuserve (all things being in a perfect world, etc. etc.): "well compuserve, you have to get news.*,comp.*,soc.*,talk.*,rec.*, and there might be a few others, i have to go look...." instead of saying "yea, this feed of usenet.* is all of Usenet, no alt.*, no vmsnet.*, etc." >This isn't just snobbery, it's an aid to understanding why groups of >people act the way they do. In due time the BBSers may bring >themselves up to Usenet's exalted level of wisdom and rationality of >discourse (for the humor impaired: :-) and petition to be admitted >fully and truly into the fold, but don't push things too fast. With a >few years' practice, I've even begun seeing rational commentary coming >from Portal! yes, i think they will move up to usenet. What will there first question be: what consists of usenet? certainly alt.* does not, but how can one look and say "well alt.sex is not part of usenet, but soc.motss is?" How can one tell? The big point of the whole proposal is to make Usenet one cohesive package so a pure usenet feed will be "usenet.*" instead of it's current incantations. It's much better than the myraid of hierarchies that are part of usenet, but i see a lot of shortsightedness among people willing to change. tim