root@telebit.UUCP (Super user) (01/07/88)
It seems natural that those of us at Telebit tech
support to use the net to disseminate configuration
information or other timly pieces of info that could
simplify use of TrailBlazers.
I realize we may tiptoe a bit close to netiquette
violations and as a result Telebit employees have
not participated in netnews discussions.
As of December 31, 1987 over 350 Telebit TrailBlazers
had been ordered or shipped to USENET sites. The
response has been so encouraging that we have
extended our USENET purchase offer until
March 31, 1988. This presents Telebit with a real
support responsibility.
We are preparing lists of these users, setup guides,
and in general would like to serve as an information
clearing house for issues related to the use of
TrailBlazer Modems.
I note newsgroups related to specific vendor's
products and maybe the creation of such a group
for TrailBlazer issues in appropriate.
We genuinely seek a medium to best support USENET
TrailBlazer users. We do not yet profess to be
experts in the ways of the net and appeal to the
community at large to provide suggestions.
Mike Ballard
Telebit Corporation
{ames, uunet, hoptoad, sun}!telebit!modemsroy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/08/88)
In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that
Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but doesn't want
to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is looking for an
acceptable way out of the problem.
Well, as Mark Horton so elegantly stated some time ago, news is not so
much a network, as a technology. Perhaps the thing to do would be to start up
a new top-level name called prod-support (or whatever). Each vendor which had
a commercial product he wished to support via news would start up his own
group (prod-support.telebit, etc) and take responsibility for administering
the topology of that particular group; finding new customers feeds, or
providing feeds themselves as they prefer. Since only those sites that were
interested in getting those groups would get them, the normal rules about not
using the net for commercial purposes wouldn't apply.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) (01/08/88)
In article <3101@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > ...Perhaps the thing to do would be to start up a new top-level name > called prod-support (or whatever). Each vendor which had > a commercial product he wished to support via news would start up his own > group (prod-support.telebit, etc) and take responsibility for administering > the topology of that particular group... I second this suggestion! It sounds like a reasonable compromise for all. Kurt Arthur Software Services of Florida, Inc.
tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) (01/08/88)
In article <3101@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that > Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but doesn't want > to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is looking for an > acceptable way out of the problem. > > Well, as Mark Horton so elegantly stated some time ago, news is not so > much a network, as a technology. Perhaps the thing to do would be to start up > a new top-level name called prod-support (or whatever). Each vendor which had > a commercial product he wished to support via news would start up his own > group (prod-support.telebit, etc) and take responsibility for administering > the topology of that particular group; finding new customers feeds, or > providing feeds themselves as they prefer. Since only those sites that were > interested in getting those groups would get them, the normal rules about not > using the net for commercial purposes wouldn't apply. > -- > Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 I think Roy's idea shows great thought and has considerable merit. Maybe as a first step, the folks at Telebit would like to take a count of those interested in such a group. Here's mine: YES! Cheers! -- Ed. Net : {uunet,ihnp4,noao,hao,yale}!hsi!tankus Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 Bell : (203) 562-2101
spp@zabriskie.uucp (Steve Pope) (01/09/88)
Given the "no-commercialization" rules on usenet, starting a newsgroup with a specific commercial purpose in mind (telebit product support) seems like a notably bad idea. Best to just sneak whatever you can into comp.dcom.modems. On a related subject, I just got some information from Telebit on their modem. It looks like a nice unit, especially at the price, but the info I have does not describe much in detail. In particular, there is little or no reference to LZ compression, error correction, uucp-spoofing mode, and all the other good things I've heard about Telebit on the net. I'd be happy to learn more about this unit, if anybody wants to enlighten me. steve
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (01/09/88)
In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Super user) writes: >It seems natural that those of us at Telebit tech >support to use the net to disseminate configuration >information or other timly pieces of info that could >simplify use of TrailBlazers. Agreed. The net (as a resource, not as an entity as we currently have it) is a very good tool to use for product support. It reaches a lot of people (many of who do not have your product but might want it), and is in other ways nearly ideal for a company selling computer products. >I realize we may tiptoe a bit close to netiquette >violations and as a result Telebit employees have >not participated in netnews discussions. Yep. In fact, I've been accused of violating etiquette guidelines in 'alt' (!) for posting shareware created here. I shudder at the thought of the amount of fire that would appear in my mailbox were we to post anything connected with our commercial entities! (in other than the 'comp.newprod' area, of course, which is moderated) >We are preparing lists of these users, setup guides, >and in general would like to serve as an information >clearing house for issues related to the use of >TrailBlazer Modems. Good! We certainly would like to do the same for our products and service offerings :-) Any manufacturer or vendor who's going to claim to provide 'support' almost has to do these things. >I note newsgroups related to specific vendor's >products and maybe the creation of such a group >for TrailBlazer issues in appropriate. > >We genuinely seek a medium to best support USENET >TrailBlazer users. We do not yet profess to be >experts in the ways of the net and appeal to the >community at large to provide suggestions. It seems to me that there is a simple solution to this problem, one which I have faced myself here at MCS. We also provide hardware and software which is of potential interest to net users. The solution was proposed elsewhere; and it's a good one. Simply create another top-level distribution much as we have done for 'pubnet' here at 'ddsw1' and other places; this distribution would be specifically for the purpose of product support and would not be a part of the normal USENET. In other words, you would have to go to some trouble to get a feed for it; but since every site would know in advance that it these groups are specifically for commercial notices and support, there would be no complaints. Also, those companies participating would of course want to see sites carry it; thus we would (as participants) have a vested interest in finding people feeds for these groups, and convincing companies and individuals to use it. The suggesting has been 'second'ed by another fellow net-user; I'm now putting my foot in my mouth (oops, my foot forward :-) and offering to begin such a distribution and help coordinate the propagation of it. I suggest a top-level name of 'commercial', which identifies for any and all to see just what kinds of things one would find inside. Subdivisions might be appropriate; for example, 'commercial.modems.telebit' could be the telebit group. As this topic is not really relavent to that part of the net which does not wish to receive (or transmit) this information I have redirected followups to myself at 'ddsw1'. The best means for seeing if this is workable is to get some feel as to how many commercial (or just interested) sites would like to participate. I would think that there is no need to limit sites in any particular way other than that they understand that commercial material *will* appear in this area. For this reason, if you wish to support (or decry) such an idea, please respond to me here. I will, of course followup to the net if/when the response warrants. -- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/09/88)
In article <5411@zen.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.UUCP (Steve Pope) writes: >Given the "no-commercialization" rules on usenet, starting >a newsgroup with a specific commercial purpose in mind (telebit product >support) seems like a notably bad idea. Best to just sneak >whatever you can into comp.dcom.modems. Oh yeah ? Where have you been living, under a rock ? Look at comp.sys.anything, product support is a way of life. Apollo even does weekly product announcements; they asked in the group if the readers would mind, and the consensus was no. Richard [give the people what they want] Sexton -- It's too dark in Santa Fe, or something like that. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, philabs!cadovax, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/10/88)
In article <5411@zen.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.UUCP (Steve Pope) writes: > Given the "no-commercialization" rules on usenet, starting a newsgroup with > a specific commercial purpose in mind (telebit product support) seems like > a notably bad idea. You miss the point, which was that just because you're transporting text around using the same programs as usenet does, doesn't mean you're on usenet. Perhaps I should be more explicit. Let's say I'm selling widgets. I've got 50 customers with whom I want to stay in contact so I can distribute bug fixes, answer technical questions, maybe even send out promotional literature in the form of print-it-yourself PostScript files. Those 50 customers want to get this stuff. They are even willing to pay phone bills to get it. Or, maybe, I'm willing to pay phone bills to get it to them. Why can't my customers and I, using existing uucp and bnews programs, start up our own private newsgroup? If you don't own a widget (or do but don't care to see this stuff), you don't even have to know that this newsgroup exists. I could call this private group comp.dcom.modems.widget9600 if I wanted to, but I consider "comp.*" to be part of usenet's reserved name space (which is why I don't think mixing the inet groups in was a good idea). Creating a new name space for these explicitly commercial groups which, by formal definition, would *not* be part of usenet, would just make maintaining the administrative distinction a bit easier. The fact is, such alternate name spaces already exist, many of them with alternate rules as to what is appropriate and what isn't. The alt namespace, for example, contains groups dedicated to subjects not considered politically proper for usenet. Those of us who don't think it appropriate to discuss recreational drug use on company-owned machines don't have to even know that other people are doing just that, spending their own money to transport the text around. And those of us that do want to discuss that topic, find it no trouble to intermix those articles with usenet traffic, sharing the same disk space, the same transport and user interface programs, and the same phone lines and modems. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/10/88)
YES! If SCO/Microport can have related newsgroups, why not Telebit?
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) (01/10/88)
In article <3101@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but doesn't want to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is looking for an acceptable way out of the problem. I have always felt that lack of product support groups is a flaw of Usenet, and would very much like to see it happen. This would put the onus on the vendors to supply only support, and not commercial hype. -- Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions. Computer Science Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis
bob@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (01/10/88)
In article <3101@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
<In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that
<>Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but
<>doesn't want to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is
<>looking for an acceptable way out of the problem.
A commendable attitude! More evidence of class at Telebit. And we
haven't even bought any of their modems (yet :-).
<...Perhaps the thing to do would be to start up a new top-level name
<called prod-support (or whatever). Each vendor which had a
<commercial product he wished to support via news would start up his
<own group (prod-support.telebit, etc) ...
A first-rate idea. Customers would only pass the appropriate
prod-support.whatever with vendor "whatever". Care would need to be
exercised at the customer end, of course, to set up the news/sys file
so as not to pass proprietary information on to competitors'
prod-support groups. Perhaps a bit tricky for the neophyte, but
that's what support organizations are supposed to be good at, right?
-=-
Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science
The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277
bob@ohio-state.{arpa,csnet} or ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bob
soon: bob@cis.ohio-state.edubrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/10/88)
In article <5411@zen.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.UUCP (Steve Pope) writes: >Given the "no-commercialization" rules on usenet, starting >a newsgroup with a specific commercial purpose in mind (telebit product >support) seems like a notably bad idea. Best to just sneak >whatever you can into comp.dcom.modems. Excuse me? Which rules are these? We had better shut down comp.newprod, even though it's one of the more widely read net groups! And since the primary recipient of all the money spent on the net is AT&T, we clearly should forbid discussion of that "Unix" OS that they make. And get Atari out of comp.sys.atari now! As you can guess, the above is tounge-in-cheek. There are no "no-commercialization" rules on this net, even to the extent that there are any rules. Many of the sites on the net accept only material which is commercially related, and of some value to their businesses. The only guidelines that I believe to be generally accepted discourage things like blatant advertising. There's also an unwritten rule of courtesy that suggests it would not be good to make use of competitor's machines for your own promotion. (Such behaviour would go beyond some folk's tolerances, I suspect.) Product announcements, news updates, technical information, discussion and responses to customer inquiries are not only permitted, but encouraged. I see nothing in principle in this against software updates or demos, but there may be some concern about the high volume of such things. In the meantime, a net that tolerates talk.bizzare can hardly complain about a little commerce. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (01/10/88)
I suggested this directly to Mr. Ballard, but seeing as the discussion
is continuing here I'll toss my $.02 out for everyone to see.
We have any number of comp.all groups where there are representatives
of various vendors answering technical questions of their customers
and other tech-support kinds of things. A really strong example of
this is in comp.sys.amiga where it seems to be part of the job for
the CATS people to read and respond to Usenet articles.
My feeling on this is that this is reasonable, but only so long as
the postings remain of a technical nature. Occasionally however,
things get "out of hand". For instance, engineers at intel and
motorola slugging it out in each other's processor's newsgroup over
who has the better chip this year. Or a recent exchange between
a CATS person and someone at ASDG (or Micron? I don' remember)
over an incompatibility/compatiblity problem on a memory board.
Getting "out of hand" means being overly hype-y over your own
product or overly not-hype-y over a competitors product. In both
cases you're not posting so much from facts as from marketing
considerations, and aren't being of any/much use to the net.
On the other hand I wouldn't be against seeing some company start
their own top-level newsgroups/distribution for use by their
product support people. If so I would prefer seeing a top-level
distribution for each manufacturer, so that the manufacturer
is more responsible for the distribution of their product
support information.
--
<---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
<---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<----
<---- Winter health warning: Remember, don't eat the yellow snow!nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) (01/10/88)
From article <3101@phri.UUCP>, by roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith): > Perhaps the thing to do would be to start up > a new top-level name called prod-support (or whatever). Each vendor which had > a commercial product he wished to support via news would start up his own > group (prod-support.telebit, etc) and take responsibility for administering > the topology of that particular group; finding new customers feeds, or > providing feeds themselves as they prefer. Since only those sites that were > interested in getting those groups would get them, the normal rules about not > using the net for commercial purposes wouldn't apply. Having recently ordered a Trailblazer myself I would like to support this. The only drawback I can see is companies like USR and Hayes (in this specific example (if they are on the net)). I could not fault them for not wanting to pay the added costs for what they could easily call a marketing tool of their competition. Do we get into the net-equivalent of equal air time? Perhaps this should be negotiated between representatives of the companies involved before we get to chew on it? By the way, I think Telebit's conduct deserves a standing ovation, there are many companies which would have started pumping the net full of info with no concern for the conventions in use, they instead have qietly refrained from any advertising hype and consulted those of us who ultimately will carry the burden and reap the benefits of the decision as to what to do. I only wish I could come up with some truly simple and universaly satisfactory answer but alas... -michael -- Michael Galassi | If my opinions happen to be the same as ...!tektronix!tessi!percival!nerd | my employer's it is ONLY a coincidence, ...!uunet!littlei!percival!nerd | of cource coincidences DO happen.
norm@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/11/88)
In article <5411@zen.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.uucp (Steve Pope) writes: > Given the "no-commercialization" rules on usenet, starting > a newsgroup with a specific commercial purpose in mind (telebit product > support) seems like a notably bad idea. Actually no. This issue has been discussed before and there's another round of talk about it right now in news.groups. The concensus (which is also my opinion on the subject) is that "commercialism" is OK (brad@looking posted comments which could be quoted here to back this up) but direct profit from the use of the net is not. That is to say that anything Telebit (or any other company using the net for this purpose) posts has to be free to any and all (including their competition) and there is no restiction on their competition doing the same. USENET is essentially a mutual benefit society, Telebit providing support on the net makes it easier for telebit owning sites to justify the phone bills they pay. I also think that the 2 for 1 deal Telebit offered was a significant contibution to net resources, of course that's arguable. > Best to just sneak whatever you can into comp.dcom.modems. No for one reason, control. Use of comp.dcom.modems for telebit tech support would be uncontrollable (and generally PO the readers of the group) a separate newsgoups would allow the net-bosses and those who pay phone bills to keep an eye on these evil commercial entities :-). The same guidelines that apply to all news groups would hold for prod-support groups i.e. newsgroups should be of interest to a significant portion of the net readership (of course how does one define significant?) and have sufficient volume. A separate newsgroup would allow sites who disagree with this use of the net to choose not to carry it. It would allow the cost-per-reader numbers for the group to be monitored so they don't get out of hand. Someone has suggested that an alternative hierarchy be set up for product support. This too is a good idea. Although some poor sucker would have to administer it. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!---\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 {utzoo,utgpu}!sickkids!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY {mnetor,utgpu}!ontmoh/
dpz@athos.rutgers.edu (David P. Zimmerman) (01/11/88)
In article <8019@g.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes: > Getting "out of hand" means being overly hype-y over your own > product or overly not-hype-y over a competitors product. In both > cases you're not posting so much from facts as from marketing > considerations, and aren't being of any/much use to the net. It also means that you don't want to have the newsgroup turn into a general flame session. Given that Telebit has a good reputation and seems to be very reasonable, the idea of a product support newsgroup tree is great! But if other-company X gets one, and all people do is gripe and bitch (or the company is unresponsive), then it will go down the drain. Of course, you don't want to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water, it is just something to be considered. And, as has been mentioned, like alt.*, if you don't want it, you don't have to pay for it. It seems that the newsreader support for this is high; how about other vendors? Can't create a tree just for one interested one. If we find others also interested, the idea of "prod-support.*" (I like "vendor.*" better actually) should definately be suggested to the backbone. dpz -- Internet: dpz@rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!dpz Bitnet: zimmerman@zodiac
clarke@acheron.UUCP (Ed Clarke) (01/11/88)
in article <5411@zen.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.uucp (Steve Pope) says: > Xref: acheron comp.dcom.modems:179 news.misc:102 > > In particular, there is little or no reference to LZ compression, > error correction, uucp-spoofing mode, and all the other good > things I've heard about Telebit on the net. I'd be happy > to learn more about this unit, if anybody wants to enlighten me. > [stuff deleted above] On a related subject, their USENET offer is good until March 31. What IS the offer? I'm a fairly new site and missed the announcement (if any). Ed Clarke phri!acheron!clarke
hirai@swatsun (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) (01/11/88)
On a related note, does anyone know if Telebit is willing
to extend their special discount for uucp sites they were offering
last year? Our site missed the deadline (December) but might be
interested in any similar offers.
Well, any information on discounts on >= 9600baud modems would
be greatly appreciated! Help u!
-a.g. hirai
--
Eiji "A.G." Hirai @ Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081 | Tel. 215-543-9855
UUCP: {rutgers, ihnp4, cbosgd}!bpa!swatsun!hirai | "All Cretans are liars."
Bitnet: vu-vlsi!swatsun!hirai@psuvax1.bitnet | -Epimenides
Internet: bpa!swatsun!hirai@rutgers.edu | of Cnossus, Cretestevo@jane.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) (01/12/88)
I am beginning to get the feel that the USENET community does not
really mind the use (I didn't say "abuse") of USENET for product
support purposes, at least to a reasonable degree. I agree. Hey, Sun
does it, Apollo does it, and Commodore (Amiga) does it, to name only a
few.
(This is not intended to be finger-pointing, merely an opinion based on
personal observation.)
Anyway, why not just create a comp.dcom.modems.telebit and let sites
propogate it if they feel like it. That's pretty much the way
everything else works around USENET, isn't it? I mean, people don't
propogate groups which they don't find useful. I think a precendent is
already being set by the community tolerating things the way they are
now. Yes, I know that minor offenses sometimes are permissible until
the Big Bust, at which time everyone gets shut down. But as long as
things are kept to a reasonable level, I think there shouldn't be any
problem. And if there is a problem, we just rmgoup it.
BTW, I would also like to say that I too think that Telebit approached
this in the right way, and I wish that more companies would be as
responsible.
-steve
/* Steve Groom, MS 168-522, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109
* Internet: stevo@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov UUCP: {ames,cit-vax}!elroy!stevo
* Disclaimer: (thick German accent) "I know noothingg! Noothingg!"
*/cutter@cutsys.UUCP (Bernie Hoffstadt ) (01/16/88)
I'm surprised that no one has suggested the proposed product-
support newsgroups be moderated. My reservations on the subject of
creating such a newsgroup consist mainly of what I consider to be the
enourmous potential for more noise on the net. Aside from the fact that
many systems are not going to want to pay for propogation of articles
that could benefit a competitor, there's also concern everywhere for the
increasing size of usenet. Now it seems to me that the proposed
newsgroups would be high on the scale of usefulness, but could easily
get out of hand, as many others suggested. However, this seems unlikely
if the newsgroups were moderated, which would not only hold down
spurious traffic, but help prevent unadvised usage of the network
resources (read advertizing hype). This idea of course has it's own
problems; where would we find suitable moderators?
--
Bernie Hoffstadt (503) 752-5929 *** Internet: cutter%cutsys.UUCP@CS.ORST.EDU
1437 N.W. 9th st. -or- 753-1646 *** -or- cutter@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU
Corvallis, Oregon 97330 ****** UUCP: {tektronix,hp-pcd}!orstcs!cutsys!cutter greg@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Greg Noel) (01/21/88)
In article <275@cutsys.UUCP> cutter@cutsys.UUCP (Bernie Hoffstadt) writes: > I'm surprised that no one has suggested the proposed product- >support newsgroups be moderated. .... >... where would we find suitable moderators? So far, we have been interested observers of this conversation; it's time we stuck in our two cents worth, since we are interested in the same thing..... At NCR, we know that there are quite a few Towers on the Usenet network, so we have been considering a moderated product-support newsgroup. We haven't settled on anything yet, but so far, the best idea seems to be to have the moderator be someone in the Product Support Department -- that is, the same people you would get if you called the NCR Product Support Hotline. The moderator's responsibility would be to simply post anything that wasn't a bug report. However, if it \was/ a bug report, they would search for the same problem in the data base of known bugs. If one was found, the resolution or work-around of the bug would be added to the article before being posted. If none was found, a new trouble report would be created and the TR number added to the article before it was posted so that progress of the fix could be traced. In all cases, the article would be posted; no censorship. (We might reserve the right to request that the poster revise inappropriate material or post it to a different news group, but that would be all.) In addition, new trouble reports (as well as trouble reports that had been received by telephone) would be circulated in an internal news group that would be read by developer personnel. This would make it possible for the fix to be quickly made available. An alternative we have considered is a mailing list that was gatewayed into an internal news group, but that doesn't seem as desireable. Another proposal has been for an unmoderated news group; this seemed to be too subject to abuse. The bottom line is that NCR is also interested in establishing a product support news group, and we would like to encourage the establishment of the ground rules so that they would be possible. Disclamer: I am not an official spokesman for NCR; the above is only my interpretation of an on-going discussion upon how we can best provide support to our customers. This particular suggestion may never become an available service. -- -- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo Greg.Noel@SanDiego.NCR.COM or greg@ncr-sd
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (01/22/88)
In article <275@cutsys.UUCP>, cutter@cutsys.UUCP (Bernie Hoffstadt ) writes: > [ ... deleted for brevity [ > many systems are not going to want to pay for propogation of articles > that could benefit a competitor, [ ... deleted for brevity ] There is no reason for anyone to worry about that. Support we created a group "comp.support.telebit". Naturally, US Robotics would not want to pay to carry that. Simple: They can do this now with the news sys file. Already we have some backbone sites saying they won't carry "talk.*". They do it like this: backbone:control,news,comp,soc,sci,rec,misc,!talk: US Robotics would look like this: usr:control,news,comp,...,!comp.support.telebit: Only the news admin at US Robotics need make this change - everyone else continues as is. The product support groups would be a great value for the money spent transmitting them. I think we should create them now. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: ai01@hios-pent.arpa
michael@trigraph.UUCP (Michael Winser) (01/22/88)
>In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that >Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but doesn't want >to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is looking for an >acceptable way out of the problem. The obvious solution (to me anyway) is to set up a mailing list. Should the traffic sufficiently large, _then_ make a news group. Michael. -- ...utscri!trigraph!michael Michael Winser michael@trigraph.UUCP Trigraph Inc. 5 Lower Sherbourne St. #201 (416) 363-8841 Toronto,Ontario M5R 3H8
hirai@swatsun.uucp (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) (01/24/88)
In article <611@hqda-ai.UUCP> merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: > > The product support groups would be a great value for the money > spent transmitting them. I think we should create them now. Yes, what are we waiting for anyway? Let's start counting votes to create the newsgroup now! I haven't been following the discussion too closely recently so I don't know what name it should be but... please, someone out there post an article to say that you are starting to count votes. We'll all mail votes to you then. It might be that people at telebit are afraid of collecting votes themselves. Perhaps they are waiting for someone outside of Telebit to start things. Please start, someone! -a.g. hirai "we don't have Trailblazers 'cause the college hasn't given us our money yet." -- Eiji "A.G." Hirai @ Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081 | Tel. 215-543-9855 UUCP: {rutgers, ihnp4, cbosgd}!bpa!swatsun!hirai | "All Cretans are liars." Bitnet: vu-vlsi!swatsun!hirai@psuvax1.bitnet | -Epimenides Internet: bpa!swatsun!hirai@rutgers.edu | of Cnossus, Crete
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (01/28/88)
>>In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that >>Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but doesn't want >>to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is looking for an >>acceptable way out of the problem. In article <352@trigraph.UUCP> michael@trigraph.UUCP (Michael Winser) writes: >The obvious solution (to me anyway) is to set up a mailing list. Should the >traffic sufficiently large, _then_ make a news group. I agree with Mike completely and this way it would give it a chance to work itself out, stabilize, and be directed at people really interested in it. -- sharan kalwani michigan cancer foundation, 110 east warren, detroit mi 48201 usenet: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan internet: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu dial net: 1-(313) 833-0710 x411
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (01/31/88)
In article <166@mcf.UUCP> shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) writes: >>>In article <110@telebit.UUCP> root@telebit.UUCP (Mike Ballard) says that >>>Telebit would like to use the net to provide product support, but doesn't want >>>to step on the net's non-commercial-use rules, and is looking for an >>>acceptable way out of the problem. > >In article <352@trigraph.UUCP> michael@trigraph.UUCP (Michael Winser) writes: >>The obvious solution (to me anyway) is to set up a mailing list. Should the >>traffic sufficiently large, _then_ make a news group. > >I agree with Mike completely and this way it would give it a chance >to work itself out, stabilize, and be directed at people really interested >in it. Mailing lists have problems -- in fact, the load which a large mailing list generates is quite substantial. In some cases it is more than a newsgroup, and it concentrates all the load at the site which hosts the mailing list (and their neighbors). For a large group of recipients it is not appropriate. We've got a solution; there is another distribution being started this weekend here at 'ddsw1' for commercial-type postings. The name of the top-level group is 'biz', and vendors may have their own group(s). For a feed, to look around, or just for more info send email. NOTE: The content of this distribution can and probably will include 'commercial' postings. Any site receiving or forwarding these should be aware of and agree with this. -- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (02/01/88)
In article <515@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > there is another distribution being started this weekend here at 'ddsw1' > for commercial-type postings. [...] The name of the top-level group is > 'biz', and vendors may have their own group(s). Uh, last I heard the top-level name was still being hashed out, and biz was only one of several posibilities (others include com, cml, prod, vendor, and I'm sure I missed a few). Are we jumping the gun here? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
jra@jc3b21.UUCP (Jay R. Ashworth) (02/02/88)
In article <515@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: } there is another distribution being started this weekend here at 'ddsw1' } for commercial-type postings. [...] The name of the top-level group is } 'biz', and vendors may have their own group(s). In article <3128@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) replies: { Uh, last I heard the top-level name was still being hashed out, and { biz was only one of several posibilities (others include com, cml, prod, { vendor, and I'm sure I missed a few). Are we jumping the gun here? Now, we all know that Roy is a great guy and all, and does a lot of good works for the net.at.large. Karl also kicks in his share of the goodies. Whence the conflict, then? I think (in the immortal words of--now, who the heck was that, anyway) that what we have here is a failure to communicate. The operative words, here, Roy, seem to be "here at ddsw1". The distribution Karl is talking about appears to be something separate from any other (read: backbone supported?) commercial distributions which may be in the works. Whether this is due to Karl's obvious enthusiasm for the idea, or a lack, somehow, of knowledge on his part that such a group was about to be started on somebody else's part, I don't know. But I'm not certain it really matters, does it? Since this tier of groups will--I assume--be carried on demand only, like the alt. subnet, by machines who want to get it. I doesn't seem to matter who starts it or where it comes from, except for orthogonality reasons. If there are other reasons, aside from avoiding duplication, I'd like for someone to point them out to me. Understand, I can see that splitting commercial sub-groups amongst two different namespaces in the domain (terminology?) could be a pain. What I don't understand is why, if Karl starts a distribution, another one would be necessary--unless the backbones were planning on carrying it? Just my $0.03 (inflation, y'know). -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth ---+-- The Great Ashworth & ------------+ ...!uunet!codas! 10974 111th St. N. | Petrillo Production Company | !usfvax2!jc3b21!jra Seminole FL 34648 +------ OS/2 x PS/2 = P(^2S)O/4 -----+-----------+--------- (813) 397-1859 ----+-- Tampa Bay's Smallest Video Production House -+ :-) !$
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (02/04/88)
In article <281@jc3b21.UUCP> jra@jc3b21.UUCP (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: >In article <515@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >} there is another distribution being started this weekend here at 'ddsw1' >} for commercial-type postings. [...] The name of the top-level group is >} 'biz', and vendors may have their own group(s). > >In article <3128@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) replies: >{ Uh, last I heard the top-level name was still being hashed out, and >{ biz was only one of several posibilities (others include com, cml, prod, >{ vendor, and I'm sure I missed a few). Are we jumping the gun here? > >Now, we all know that Roy is a great guy and all, and does a lot of good >works for the net.at.large. Karl also kicks in his share of the >goodies. Whence the conflict, then? I think (in the immortal words >of--now, who the heck was that, anyway) that what we have here is a >failure to communicate. The operative words, here, Roy, seem to be >"here at ddsw1". The distribution Karl is talking about appears to be >something separate from any other (read: backbone supported?) commercial >distributions which may be in the works. 'Biz' was the group name chosen for several reasons (if you want a run-down on this, mail me... I can send you more) It is true. We have begun this distriubtion, along with about 20 other interested parties, due to the following considerations: 1) We do not, initially at least, want this to be a 'backbone-supported' set of groups. This means we are free to post as we will to this area, without the specter of 'being commercial' having any effect whatsoever. In fact, it's specifically mentioned in the document which explains the groups that commercial postings *will* appear in this distribution, and if you don't want them, you should not carry the groups. 2) All companies (and individuals) who carry these groups will know the 'terms and conditions'. No one will be fed "just because it's there". Since you have to *ask* for the feed, you know what's coming (this should prevent flaming about 'commercial' postings). >Whether this is due to Karl's obvious enthusiasm for the idea, or a >lack, somehow, of knowledge on his part that such a group was about to >be started on somebody else's part, I don't know. But I'm not certain >it really matters, does it? Since this tier of groups will--I >assume--be carried on demand only, like the alt. subnet, by machines >who want to get it. I doesn't seem to matter who starts it or where it >comes from, except for orthogonality reasons. If there are other >reasons, aside from avoiding duplication, I'd like for someone to point >them out to me. It's due to my enthusiasm for this distribution and lack of desire to support yet-another-moderated-and-traditional set of Usenet groups. Don't get me wrong -- we'd love to have the backbone pick this distribution up (hint: we can feed 'ihnp4' or anyone else in Chicago direct if you guys want this -- but it means that you must accept the message mix and content AS IS). What is not tolerable is the 'backbone' telling us, the vendors who are to be making use of this distribution, what is and is not appropriate. For these reasons this newsgroup set was started apart from the backbone. >Understand, I can see that splitting commercial sub-groups amongst two >different namespaces in the domain (terminology?) could be a pain. What >I don't understand is why, if Karl starts a distribution, another one >would be necessary--unless the backbones were planning on carrying it? Well, this I have to agree with..... it could be a pain. Then again, the backbone could decide to carry the 'biz' distribution. I suspect that it will be quite popular even if the backbone *doesn't* carry it though (from the volume of requests I have received) Anyway, here's the scoop on 'biz': 1) The 'biz' distribution has been created at 'ddsw1'. About a half-dozen sites across the country have requested feeds from us direct so far -- these we will provide (as well as a feed to anyone else who wants it and can poll us -- we have Telebit service). We currently are testing the distribution between 'igloo' <> 'ddsw1', with it scheduled to be 'turned on' this evening for real use. 2) The groups *will* carry messages with commercial content. In particular, whatever occurs within a vendor's set of groups is entirely up to them -- advertising included. 3) The distribution looks like this: biz.config - Configuration questions, etc. biz.test - The mandatory test area (boring) biz.comp.hardware - Non-vendor specific hardware postings biz.comp.software - Non-vendor specific hardware postings biz.comp.services - Non-vendor specific services postings biz.comp.telebit - Telebit modem informatioin biz.comp.mcs - Macro computer Solutions information biz.comp.xxxxx - Top-level group for company 'xxxxx' Note a few things about this scheme: 1) Top-level groups for VENDORS will not be moderated by mutual agreement. Vendors may create sub-groups under their top-level which *are* moderated if desired. This allows a vendor to have a place to put their information without interferance, and also allows the users of the newsgroup to post to the firm's group without easy censorship being possible. 2) Any firm can be *specifically* excluded easily if needed. This will be a natural check-and-balance on the "post the entire catalog and all advertising drivel". Those firms who do this will simply have everyone putting "!biz.comp.xxx" in their sys files (effectively isolating them). 3) Those vendors who don't want to go to the trouble to get their own group can post to the .hardware, .sofware, and .services groups without problems. This makes the 'cost of entry' to the biz distribution nearly zero. 4) Anyone who wants fed can mail me for a feed..... Hope this clarifies things a bit! ----- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
tjfs@otter.hple.hp.com (Tim Steele) (02/15/88)
Mike, Can you post your phone number? Thanks Tim
ejnihill@sactoh0.UUCP (Eric J. Nihill) (09/27/88)
About a week ago I posted a request to the net for
information on how to purchase a Telebit modem at a
one time reduced cost.
First, I would like to thank all those who responded
to my question regarding the purchasing of the Telebit
modems. Your input was invaluable and made this summary
possible.
Until 30 Sept 1988, any registered site may make a one
time purchase of two Telebit Modems for the price of one.
You may purchase just one at half price if you prefer.
If you have not registered your site yet, you may still
place the order, and when your site is posted to the maps,
they will ship. You MUST place the order BEFORE 30 Sept 1988.
Their Toll Free number is (800) TELEBIT (835-3248). Ask
for Debbie or Tessie. They are located in California, so
allow for the time zone difference. The price is approximately
$672.00 each. Call for accurate price quote. Their E-Mail
address is {sun,ames}!telebit!mike , but don't use that to
place an order.
I hope that this will help others;
Eric Nihill
--
#################################################################
# Sign In Triplicate before # Serving The State Capitol Of #
# Discarding:________________ # California: sactoh0 #
#################################################################