lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (05/23/88)
I am curious about an attitude I keep seeing around the net recently. I keep seeing the concept of "well, why dont you just go use a local BBS'? Has anyone thought about the possibility that folks ARE using a local BBS? Two points here - 1) why are the forums organized under the comp, misc, soc, talk, alt, and so forth considered 'different' than any other BBS ? 2) There are a number (large?) of BBS which gateway messaging and files, etc. between a usenet host and other software based hosts (fidonet, proline, other?) Look at that nixpub listing of folks runnign public access Unix systems which provide usenet access (portal, chinet, ncoast, Big Red, etc) Why is it that folks are being flamed when many of them ARE using local BBS? -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 osu-cis!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (INTERNET) We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/24/88)
>I am curious about an attitude I keep seeing around the net recently. >I keep seeing the concept of "well, why dont you just go use a local >BBS'? Assuming the question isn't rhetorical... When people say "go use a local BBS" they typically mean go find some IBM-PC-type machine running a FIDO-type BBS, which has lots of software for you to download, at your expense. This is quite different from the Usenet scheme, where binaries are broadcast to thousands of sites, in the hope that enough people find it worthwhile to justify the total aggregate cost in phone money, CPU time, and disk space. Another reason why people say "go use a BBS" is that the PC-based BBS's seem to generally have their act together vis-a-vis distributing and making binaries available, while this has never been a major priority for the hundred of people who've "worked on" Usenet. (Excuse the awkward terminology; I'm trying to avoid the narrow, loaded, terms of moderator, backbone, or "net.god".) Another common reason is that PC-based BBS's generally keep things around forever, while Usenet articles are (mostly) transitory. People often get particularly upset seeing countless repostings of something that came out last season, or if because some people missed the second part of a 20-part Hypercard Stack. I think the primary difference is one of orientation; many people believe Usenet is "free", while BBS's cost money. Such folks are short-sighted, at best, and damn selfish at worst: they are looking no further than their own phone bill. Go subscribe to Compu-Serve. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) (05/24/88)
To Rich Salz:
(Sorry, my terminal has incomplete VT100 emulation so it's hard for me to
quote little bits of long articles.)
Anyway... I agree with everything you said about USENET's binaries vs.
files on BBS's except for the part about BBS's cost money. I have yet to
spend any money calling BBS's, and I have been calling them for three years.
(Well, just recently I donated $5 to one of my favorites because the sysop
was moving and couldn't afford to get a second phone line, but anyway...)
Most BBS's don't charge money. And because there are over 200 BBS's in the
Denver/Boulder area I have no reason to call long distance boards. I know
Denver has one of the largest (if not *the* largest) local BBS populations,
but I'm sure most areas can get most popular files from at least one local
BBS. Personally, I see no reason for there to be any non-mainframe-based
binaries, but I'm certainly not going to worry about it. It doesn't affect
me. I just ignore the binary groups.
Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU
...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric
Who needs a Net.Rabbit when you can have a net.cat?
sorry...gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (05/24/88)
/ news.misc / swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) / May 23, 1988 / >I agree [...] except for the part about BBS's cost money. I have yet to >spend any money calling BBS's, and I have been calling them for three years. >Most BBS's don't charge money. And because there are over 200 BBS's in the >Denver/Boulder area I have no reason to call long distance boards. Yep. But Denver/Boulder is probably one of the largest free calling areas in the U.S. Here in the Chicago area, calling an apartment in the same building often costs money (it depends on which phone company services your area). Hence the "costs money" part. Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,ihnp4}!nucsrl!gore
swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) (05/25/88)
In article <3230008@eecs.nwu.edu> gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) writes:
:Yep. But Denver/Boulder is probably one of the largest free calling areas in
:the U.S. Here in the Chicago area, calling an apartment in the same building
:often costs money (it depends on which phone company services your area).
:Hence the "costs money" part.
Do you call your USENET access point (or whatever the correct term is) using
a PC and a modem? If not, you obviously use a hardwired dumb terminal which
has no downloading capabilities. (This isn't really directed at you, but I
hope someone gets my point. If not, I'll try to elaborate.)
Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU
...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric
Who needs a Net.Rabbit when you can have a net.cat?
sorry...nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (05/28/88)
In article <560@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: > > I am curious about an attitude I keep seeing around the net recently. > I keep seeing the concept of "well, why dont you just go use a local > BBS'? Has anyone thought about the possibility that folks ARE using a ... > and files, etc. between a usenet host and other software based hosts > (fidonet, proline, other?) Look at that nixpub listing of folks runnign > public access Unix systems which provide usenet access (portal, chinet, > ncoast, Big Red, etc) Why is it that folks are being flamed when many of > them ARE using local BBS? In fact it is certainly true that most of the binaries (and sources) that I carry on my ProLine BBS I gathered off of usenet and/or uucp-based mailing lists, I couldn't afford to run the BBS if that weren't the case. Furthermore if you start checking posters on groups like comp.sys.apple you will find that a noticable percentage them are posting from ProLine systems like mine. We are running into a very interesting situation where connectivity is getting very high and the usenet backbone is no longer just carrying the load for usenet sites, but also for everything down to the pc level. Socially I think it's an incredibly interesting phenomenon. Financially I'm not sure how long it's going to last. -nazgul -- ### {mit-erl,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!nazgul ### (Apple ][e ProLine BBS) ### ### apollo!nazgul@eddie.mit.edu ### nazgul@pro-angmar.uucp ### ### nazgul@apollo.uucp ### (617) 641-3722 300/1200/2400 ### I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.