webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (04/28/87)
In article <7960@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > The most natural solution would be that if the a site cannot expend > > more than a certain amount of resources toward supporting the net, > > then it should just support the net to the extent that it can and then > > cease for that day... > > This is what many sites are in effect doing. The key point is that those No they are not. Doubtless some network timewarp caused you to miss my explanation of the difference between giving and buying. > sites would like to support the *best* material, not just whatever happens > to arrive first. This implies some sort of selection mechanism. Which in turn implies alot of nerve. USENET was not created for the `best and the brightest'. It grew the way it did because programmers working alone late at night in windowless rooms like to occasionally get together with people of similar interests. Now, I can see where you might prefer to view USENET as a free consultant agency or a free source of programs, but this is not why people read news. They read news to associate with colleagues and if occasionally they pass on some useful technical information -- well, that is secondary. > > That would let the net adapt to such throughput > > restrictions in a `natural manner' (other sites picking up more share > > as they percieve greater responsibility)... > > What happens if nobody is willing to pick it up? Frankly, most of the > backbone sites would be delighted to pass the whole job to somebody else. > There is a distinct lack of volunteers for massive phone bills, massive > system load, clogged communications lines, and regular public abuse. If nobody picks it up, then it dies a natural death. Considering the mess some of the backbone sites have gotten themselves into, it is probably best for everyone for them to drop from the net. While you cite a lack of volunteers to place themselves similarly, I note that there are names on the current backbone list that weren't there 2 years ago. All I advise, is that in memory of the spirit with which they joined the net in the first place, they withdraw from the net gradually. That does not mean wait a year and withdraw. That means start withdrawing immediately by decreasing the amount of resources they expend on the net slowly. If you wait a year, everyone will wait a year before figuring out what to do. If you start decreasing immediately, people will start adapting immediately. I assure you that no site is irreplaceable, although the immediate loss of any backbone site would be needlessly disruptive. Once these people have reduced the nets dependancy on them to that of a leaf node, it would then be appropriate for them to follow whatever bizzare policy they wished. --------------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu)