seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/15/86)
In article <317@sdcarl.UUCP> tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: >. > So what is the verdict?? Is the posting of sources and binaries for >the ST kosher? Or is the net only around for UNIX and like systems? If it >is, how are the following newsgroups justified? > > net.sources.mac > mod.amiga.sources > mod.amiga.binaries > > I for one, use many machines (IBM,SMI,DEC,Atari,Apple,Motorola,etc.) >at work, and most of them are not UNIX machines. I appreciate getting useful >programs for these machines from the net. If I have to, I will call a BBS >to get certain useful programs, but I prefer not to, when: A) UCSD (my place >of employ) should be paying for the acquisition, B) it is annoying to stay up >until 1 AM, only to get 20 minutes of access to a busy BBS, and C) my VAX has >uucp, which does it all so much better. I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. (Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
chuq@sun.UUCP (05/18/86)
> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing > software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they > set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for > machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run > mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be using Unix machines to communicate. The reality is that USENET hasn't been a unix network for a long time, just a network that uses Unix. If you're serious about limiting yourself to Unix discussions, we need to kill everything else off except Unix, which would kill the net. chuq -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucid
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/19/86)
In article <2021@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: > >I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > >(Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties >of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) > >Snoopy >tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy I don't see why educational computer installations should pay for the distribution and development of Unix system. Perhaps it would be better if they limited their transmissions to library catalogues and lecture schedules. Surely nothing more than that can be justified. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (05/20/86)
In article <2021@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: >In article <317@sdcarl.UUCP> tre@sdcarl.UUCP (Tom Erbe) writes: >>. >> So what is the verdict?? Is the posting of sources and binaries for >>the ST kosher? Or is the net only around for UNIX and like systems? If it >>is, how are the following newsgroups justified? >> >> net.sources.mac >> mod.amiga.sources >> mod.amiga.binaries >> >> I for one, use many machines (IBM,SMI,DEC,Atari,Apple,Motorola,etc.) >>at work, and most of them are not UNIX machines. I appreciate getting useful ... >I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. (Wherein oyster@uwmacc resolves to forego flaming on this topic and enter into serious discourse...) OK. There are two ways that I work with our UNIX machine. One of them is being used right now from my office. It's an IBM PC. The other sits on the desk in my study at home, and is an Atari ST. For both of these methods of access, I need *at least* a good terminal emulator. Now add on a file transfer program or two, so I can edit files on the non- UNIX machine (effectively "off-line", since paying users like to access the UNIX machine, too, and since my wife wants to use the 'phone every once in awhile :-). Oh-- did I say off-line editing? How about a nice PD editor? What? Use UNIX-like tools on the ST for development, and transfer working, portable C code to the VAX? Sure! Now, where were we? Oh yeah; supporting non-Unix machines on a Unix network. To date, either directly or indirectly (diskettes *are* flying back and forth through USmail at our personal expense), I have gotten Xmodem programs for both the ST and Unix, a vi clone for the ST, a make utility (ST), etc. The software alone has contributed immensely to using my ST as an extension of the local Unix machine. Add in the non-software aspects of the computer-related newsgroups, and I personally find those "non-Unix" newsgroups contributing substantially to the usefulness of my local Unix machine. And if I walk down the hall here, I'll run into Mac users, Amiga owners, etc, all of whom use their pet micros in conjunction with the Unix Vax. They're all benefitting from "non-Unix" newsgroups. > >(Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties >of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) > Yes, but what does net.cooks, or net.music, or net.SF-Lovers contribute to Unix? Seems to me that if ya wanna ban non-Unix topics, those things would be the first to go (note: I just chose those particular groups 'cause I enjoy 'em, too). Actually, Chuq's answer expressed my view of USENET quite succinctly, so I'll let it rest there. -- - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) P.S. I took the liberty of editting out any specific micro newsgroup(s) in the Newsgroups line.
walt@rclex.UUCP (Walter L. Weber) (05/20/86)
>>I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >>software and discussions for other operating systems. There is, of course, adequate precedent for such an attitude: "WHAT?? Permit MY LINES to be accessed by some stranger's equipment? Without a DAA? NO WAY!" -- spoken by a well-known Ma whose name should ring a bell :-) -- Walt Weber UUCP: {harvard,ll-xn}!rclex!walt Ridge Computers PHONE: (617) 861-6000 Lexington, Mass. COMPUSERVE: 76515,2423
turner@imagen.UUCP (05/21/86)
> > I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing > software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they > set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for > machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run > mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > > (Before someone mentions groups like net.cooks, consider the difficulties > of connecting a modem to your average saucepan.) > > Snoopy > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (as our hero mounts his high horse, he turns and says....) if we were dealing in machines and not people i would agree with you but we are not. Allow me to stretch a point, you surely expect your company to light your office, provide furniture, health bennies etc. why ? UNIX machine do not need any of those ! We are dealing in people here and (at least) i do not live by unix alone. and i will mention net.cooks, rec, motss etc. the beauty of the net is its breadth of interests, its exciting to feel that you're not just tied into another techno-nerd net. -- ---- "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" -Blade Runner Name: James M. Turner (not the James M. Turner at Lisp Machine Inc.) Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner CompuServe: 76327,1575 GEnie : D-ARCANGEL
seifert@hammer.UUCP (05/21/86)
In article <3710@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >> software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >> set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >> machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >> mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > >Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be >using Unix machines to communicate. My question is, "Since they have these other machines, why can't they use these other machines for discussions about these machines?" > If you're serious about limiting yourself to Unix discussions, > we need to kill everything else off except Unix, which would kill the net. That's not what I'm proposing at all. The (well-known) problem is, that the amount of traffic on usenet is getting completely out of hand. Too many resources are being consumed, and WE have to do something to fix this before the plug gets pulled on the whole net. There are a number of causes for the amount of traffic, including the growth in the number of sites, ignorant newusers making mistakes, bozos, problems with hardware and software, etc. What can we do to reduce the amount of traffic without reducing the usefulness of the net? - make the hardware and software more robust - educate newusers - kick abusers off the net (after several warnings) - go to moderated groups - put traffic for non-unix machines on those machines, making them carry their own weight. (since they can) - kill groups with high volume and very poor signal-to-noise ratios I don't really like the idea of having to go to moderated groups, since that creates a lot of work for the moderator (which would be unnecessary if only people would control themselves), and raises the possibility of censorship. But if well done, it could help increase the signal-to-noise ratio and lower the load on the net. I also don't like the idea of killing groups, but "those-in-charge" are doing it now (ala net.flame and net.bizzare). There is a problem with identifying which groups to kill, as one person's garbage is another's treasure. Having non-unix machines carry their own traffic seems like a very good way to reduce the load on the Unix machines without killing the traffic. It's fair, and it allows people who don't have access to a Unix machine to participate. I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
cem@intelca.UUCP (05/22/86)
[Sorry net.micro, I'll keep it short.] > > ... Lot's of stuff about how the net is failing and what to do about it > edited out. [Ed Note: Most of the suggestions are already implemented]... > > I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given > any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy Whereupon we come to the previous statement. Mr Seifert (aka snoopy) there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and apple machines it would have a good chance here). --Chuck McManis -- - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - {ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (05/23/86)
In article <2044@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: >In article <3710@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >>> software and discussions for other operating systems. ... >> >>Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be >>using Unix machines to communicate. A few net groups are absolutely unique to usenet (not being replicated on local BBS systems and pay-for-use systems like CompuServe). These are the more technical groups: net.unix, net.lan etc. Whatever else happens first priority must be to preserve these groups. Discussions about MSDOS, pets, gardening and Atari ST's can, if necessary, be continued elsewhere. The arguements about net groups typically reduce to personal preference, a popularity contest about which ones most of the people using the net happen to like or a signal-to-noise ratio discussion. Since the net, as it is now, cannot grow without bound, breaking it down into various (hopefully reasonably interconnected domains) is probably inevitable at some point. If nothing else, trying to transfer 1 Gig of news a day will not work with current technology. My personal preference is to think of the net as composed of four fundamental parts: net.unique.groups, net.other.technical.groups (net.micro etc), net.the.rest and mod.* and to base future plans on these fundamental domains. -- voice= 415 823-2441 uucp={ihnp4,dual,qantel}!ptsfa!jmc
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/31/86)
In article <51@intelca.UUCP> cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >> I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given >> any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. >there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. > 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to > network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) > 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical > mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and > apple machines it would have a good chance here). I didn't say "don't", I said "can't". If you feel you need a dedicated phone line, I'm sure that your local phone company would be very happy to install one for you at the same rates they charge for a phone line connected to a UNIX machine. No standard and free package? Well, get busy and write one! This is the information age, people. If you want to convince anyone that your fav machine is worth the power it sucks out of the outlet, it had better be able to communicate. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy