dave@jplopto.uucp (Dave Hayes) (02/15/89)
Ross Greenber writes: > Simply because BIX charges a coupla bucks doesn't mean that they're somehow > money-sucking-scum-buckets. You get a pretty good value for your dollar. > I suggest that you take them up on their freebie trial offer before you put > them down.....you might be surprised to find that they complement USENET > pretty darn well. Ross, I think that the major complaint that netters would have against BIX is the lack of enthusiasm they have for bi-directional information flow. Granted, they are a pay service, and probably don't want to grant that service without charging something for it. But remember, not all BIXen are affiliated with a computer system that can get USENET. I don't think that they would lose very many customers; I certanly wouldn't drop BIX because I could access it free on USENET. My remote access costs me about $10 a month, by using the automatic download/upload technique called blinking....I rarely spend more than 3 minutes a day on it. I can afford that expense. In fact, I *like* BIX. But the idea of ANY service just sucking up all the information here without putting anything back can be easily taken as "money-sucking-scum-bucket" behaivor. In fact, that would be my only objection to a BIX/USENET connection. As long as BIX is putting something back (maybe they'd have their own newsgroup or something....like news.bix.<conference> would be set up to echo back and forth) I have no problems with it. Otherwise, I think that a lot of net.resistance from myself and others would be justified. ============================================================================ Opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<<<([Dave Hayes])>>>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= dave%jplopto@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov | Jet Propulsion Laboratory M/S 300-329 {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!jplopto!dave | 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 BIX: dhayes | (818) 354-1910 "Don't hang on...nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky." ============================================================================
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/16/89)
Oh! Nothing I posted should imply that I don't see a requirement for a bi-directional information exchange. However, recall that BIX is in business so they can at least breakeven. So, posting all of BIX here would be a foolish business decision on their part, in my opinion. Posting enough of BIX so that people can see what it is like, and whether it is something they'd like to give a shot to would be in their best interests. Someplace in between the two extremes is probably something worthy to shoot for.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/17/89)
In article <492@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Posting enough of BIX so that people can see what it is like, and whether >it is something they'd like to give a shot to would be in their best >interests. > >Someplace in between the two extremes is probably something worthy to >shoot for. Think of in terms of UseNet distributions. I see no problem with BIX having their own system be the default "distribution" for all posting's on their system - as long as a user can specify a wider distribution which can include UseNet. Much like posting an article and having it default to local and having to specify world if that's what you wanted (normally news defaults to world and you have to specify local if needed, some people have suggested that this be reversed for UseNet). So by default most information posted on BIX would remain there. But if a user wanted to post an article and have it go to UseNet as well as BIX he should be able to do that. (It should also be very easy to do this, ie you shouldn't have to re-enter, or have to run strange commands to do this. It should be something that even a beginning user to BIX can understand. It probably shouldn't have any additional charge either.) Bi-directional mail traffic would be important as well, a previous article mentioned that this might be happening. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
bensmith@bixpb (Ben Smith) (02/19/89)
Just a few corrections before the stories stray to far: (1) I don't not run BIX; I run a machine at BYTE that is owned by BIX. It is an old Arete which I have brouoght out of mothballs for the sole purpose of connecting to the net, sending/receiving messages with our authors and interested folks, and reading/contributing to NetNews. This machine was used for the original development of BIX, but is not connected to the BIX machine in any physical way. I am employed by BYTE as an editor. I am not an employee of BIX. (Talk about disclaimers -- whew! ;-) (2) We were testing the UseNet for feelings about different kinds of connections for the real BIX machine. Because of the now obvious feelings about an edited feed of NetNews to BIX, those plans have evaporated. We are working on getting approval for a two-way mail connection. Many other $PAY$ systems are planning to do this also. I am still receiving comments about my first message (which started the BIX/Usenet discussion. They are really moot at this point, however I will read them, though probably not respond unless there is some criticism of BYTE (constructive or destructive). Since I am an editor at BYTE, I am very interest in past, present, future readers critiques, and ideas. I am especially interested in any ideas for articles that folks would like to read (or write). Thanks -ben -- Ben Smith - technical editor | (603) 924-2575 | uunet!bixpb!bensmith BYTE Magazine | | uunet!bixpb!smithbs!ben One Phoenix Mill Lane | | Peterborough, NH 03458 | | BIX: bensmith