lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/17/85)
I am including the text of the threatening message from "hercules"
below. Some of you will have already seen it. But I want to
make sure that everyone interested in the project (one way or
another) sees this particular message. I've had several people
already suggest to me that I or Usenix should take legal action
against the author of the message, under one or more of several
strong legal grounds. However, my own inclination is not to hassle
with such things whenever possible. I'll say this though. If
the hassle level about this stuff continues to rise, I will pull
out and I will recommend to the satellite carrier that they pull
out as well. In that respect, our friend at hercules may get his
way--and then you can all personally thank him for the results,
one way or another.
I'm not going to go over all the issues again. They've been
discussed ad naseum in net.news and net.news.stargate, quite
openly. If you haven't seen them, I recommend that you dig up
the archives and look them over. I'm not going to point out
the factual errors in the author's message, they have been
discussed already in previous messages. My own impression is that
the clear issue bothering the message author is that he wants
to make sure that EVERYONE is forced, forever, to pay for and
receive EVERYTHING that ANYONE ever posts on Usenet. Only in that
way can he be sure to keep getting all his free goodies, even though
he's forcing other people to pay for things they might not want,
and to spend their time wading through the muck. But if that's
the way most people want it, that's fine by me. The ONLY way stargate
can work is through moderation. Not vicious censorship--but
considered moderation. Nothing forces people to drop landline
netnews feeds other than their own costs and interests. Right now
they are held captive by the technology of the net. I was hoping
to give people some choice.
But I can live quite nicely, thank you, without threats and
intimidation over a damn volunteer project. I am *this close*
to pulling my support from the project and recommending that
the satellite carrier refuse to provide facilities. Some of
the satellite people are going to be at Usenix, and I'll be
damned if I'm going to let them get insulted, even if only
by a few people.
I don't need this kind of sh** in my life. Within the next
24 hours I'll probably decide if I'm going to proceed at all.
I know that there are many people out there who support the
project, and I have appreciated your messages of encouragement.
But I hope that you'll understand, after reading the message
below, why I may be forced to recommend that this entire
matter be terminated. And if that happens, you'll have
the author below, and a relatively few people like him,
to thank.
I have my own life to live and I'm not ready to put up with
this sort of stuff indefinitely. I hope you all understand.
--Lauren--
[MESSAGE FOLLOWS]
Received: by vortex.UUCP (VT1.00C)
from decvax with UUCP; Wed, 16-Jan-85 16:39:15 PST
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decvax.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hercules.UUCP
Path: decvax!tektronix!teklds!hercules!franka
From: franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian)
Newsgroups: net.cooks,net.crypt,net.cse,net.cycle,net.flame,net.followup,net.games,net.games.emp
Subject: WARNING
Message-ID: <387@hercules.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 00:59:34 EST
Article-I.D.: hercules.387
Posted: Wed Jan 16 00:59:34 1985
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 119
First of all, let me apologize for the multiple post-
ings, posting to groups where I am not allowed
(net.women.only), and, in general, making a mess of the net.
Also, let me say that ALL RESPONSES to this should either
use net.news or private mail to me. Again I apologize for
the inconvenience, but in this case, due to this mes-
sage's importance, I feel this is justified.
Also, the opinions posted here are my own and in no way
reflect those of my employer or any of its other employees.
Primarily, the message is that, unless something is
done shortly, this newsgroup may not exist a year or two
from now. To understand why requires a bit of history.
The USENET was at first a very small net. Being a very
small network, the news software was written as an unmo-
derated bulletin board system, where anyone could post items
thought to be of interest to all. As time went on, the suc-
cess of this concept became evident, as shown by the
increased number of machines on the news network and the
corresponding increased volume of news items. In fact, the
volume of news items increased so much that some of the
backbone sites were finding it hard to justify the cost of
news forwarding over long distance phone lines.
A few months ago, a group of network administrators got
together and decided to fund a project called "STARGATE".
Basicly, this was a sound idea. News sources would be
routed to the STARGATE transmitter which would beam the mes-
sages to a satellite which would, in turn, relay the mes-
sages to more localized network hubs, thus alleviating the
need for as many long distance calls. A satellite carrier
was found and the plans for designing hardware and software
put into motion.
Unfortunately, the people who have promoted this scheme
could not leave well enough alone. They felt that the
volume of "garbage" flowing through the net was too high.
They felt that the carrier of these messages might be able
to be sued for possibly libelous messages. They felt that
this was their chance to play God and they took it. In
short, the new network will have no unmoderated news.
Any message that is to be transmitted through STARGATE
will be screened by a moderator for "suitability of con-
tent", "possibility of libel", and other vague criteria
which only he moderators will know. You won't be able to
protest a bounced message, because the moderator is the only
person with a right to relay your message to the STARGATE.
If your article is bounced or edited beyond recognition you
won't be able to defend yourself - how are you going to get
a message past the moderator? In short, you can call it
moderation, but it's still a euphemism for censorship.
"Fine," you say, "We'll just post it in groups that
don't go through the STARGATE." Well, I wish that were pos-
sible. Unfortunately, the backbone sites have decided that
since they have STARGATE, and all of the "important" groups
are there, they don't have to forward news articles in other
"less popular" groups. The net, except for STARGATE ser-
vice, has effectively been destroyed. The only people for
whom the net exists freely is the moderators. The modera-
tors decide what are "acceptable" topics for the net. They
have the power to say what you can say.
The new people in power bleat, "We're saving the net.
Without this the backbone sites will desert, anyway." What
good is saving the net if only the people in power can enjoy
it? If they cared about the net (and not just their cozy
little portion of it) they'd fight in their institutions to
save it. The news network, as it stands now, is something
unique and should not be drastically altered.
What can we do about this? I really can't think of
much. The net has always been voluntary. One thing is cer-
tain, though. As soon as STARGATE goes into effect, the
chances for a free network surviving is nil. The institu-
tions involved can point to STARGATE and say that there's a
perfectly good network right there. There will be very lit-
tle chance to start a new network at that time. So the only
thing I can suggest is to try to stop STARGATE in any way
possible. Let the people who conceived of this know that it
is not appreciated. E-Mail bomb them. Flame them until
they drop. If you see them in public, spit on them. Hide
dog turds in their desks. Disrupt the next USENIX meeting.
Check with your local ACLU to see if there are any legal
means to stop this. Harass them in any way possible.
In the mean time, organize. Let your institution know
that you appreciate this service they provide to you. Let
them know that any change in the posting criteria of one of
the last free bulletin board systems is not appreciated.
Set up an alternative network to take this net's place when
it folds. Hopefully, there will be a place for unmoderated
news posting when this is over.
The organizers have been less than honest with you.
They hide in net.news (and net.news.stargate), discussing
these things which will alter your news service, without
generally informing the public. The first you would have
heard about it is when backbone sites would have said,
"We're not transmitting anything but moderated groups from
now on." You wouldn't have been able to stop them. Goodbye,
net.women. Goodbye, net.motss. Goodbye, net.singles.
Goodbye, net.rec.*. Goodbye, net.flame. Goodbye, every
news group that doesn't relate directly with what you do at
work, is politically unpopular, or that your administrator
just doesn't like.
It looks as if a great experiment is coming to an end.
But it doesn't have to be this way, if we work together.
Save the net. Stop the STARGATE. Don't let them take away
a unique and wonderful resource from us. Together, we can
stop them.
Stop the STARGATE,
Frank Adrianavolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (01/17/85)
Wow. What a way to end the day...
I sure have mixed emotions about this. ON the one hand I can
see that the fellow at hercules might be genuinely concerned
about the future of the net. On the other hand the way he
expressed himself sure made a case for news moderation -- 119
lines to a slew of news groups. Not even 119 *good* or
*thoughtful* lines. (At the very least someone should wash out
his mouth with soap.) It is clear that the poster doesn't
consider net.news an "open" forum but I don't know where he's
been the past few weeks. The issues he raises have all been
kicked around enough by now.
In any event, Lauren I can certainly sympathize with you and
the rest of you who are working hard to make this net better.
I'd hate to see one posting like this from a jerk put you off.
(Anyone who advocates public spitting, hiding dog turds,
disrupting USENIX meetings, and "flaming til they drop" I define
as a "jerk." Call me intolerant...) But I don't think many will
blame you if you pull out.
--
Fred Avolio
301/731-4100 x4227
UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio
ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismo.ARPAdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (01/17/85)
<>
Welcome to the age of paranoia. So STARGATE is going to mean an end to
democracy, civilization, and McDonald's huh? I don't buy that. No one
(who is going to be taken seriously, anyway) has advocated censorship of
political views or anything of the sort. What has been proposed is
nothing more onerous than the removal of slander (which OUGHT to be
removed) and obscenity (which I've nothing against but which probably
should not appear in a public forum such as this). In return for this
mild bit of sanitizing we get a better, faster network that costs less.
Sounds good to me.
I sympathize with Lauren's posting. He is sorely set upon and accused
of everything from milking money from the project (which he is not, and
which he would be entitled to even if he were) to opposing civil
liberties. Here he is doing a whale of a lot of work for nothing in
return except a few encouraging words and a mound of wild accusations.
If he drops the project I can't blame him, but I hope he doesn't. One
of the penalties of actually doing something is becoming a target for
the hysterical. Maybe that's why we don't have any better politicians
than we have...
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarybch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (01/17/85)
If there's any crime here, or any abridgement of rights, it is in the
possibility that the STARGATE project will be dropped or delayed because
some loony tune regurgitates his paranoid fantasies into every newsgroup
he can think of. There is a serious abuse of usenet *privileges* (NOT
rights) here that ought to be dealt with in some manner. Site admini-
strators, like it or not, have the right to decide how they will spend
resources. There can be no guarantee that usenet will exist next week,
much less any legal way to enforce its continued existence.
We should, however, have expected something like this. As has been
demonstrated time and again in many newsgroups, when you get a group
of people together that is as large as the usenet readership you are
bound to have a few people that are simply off the wall. Most of the
time they are ignored or cause mild irritation and a bit of flaming.
It's simply silly to let one of these folks have any influence on the
future of the net.
Lauren, you know you have lots of support on usenet. There's no need
to shoulder this all by yourself and no point in threatening to drop
out of the project because of one person's hysteria. I'm sure that
I am not the only one who would like to help this project get off
the ground (pun intended) and would happily take some hassling by
crazies if it could insure the STARGATE project's success.
I would like to know who this powerful group of usenet administrators
is and where they are getting the money to "fund" the STARGATE project.
We haven't gotten a bill from Usenet, Inc. yet nor have any CIA types
appeared at my door to demand I censor incoming news. :-)
--
Byron Howes
System Manager -- NCECS
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/18/85)
I will be the first to agree with you that the way Frank Adrian expressed his opinion of the Stargate project was inexcusable. The people who have been working on this project certainly deserve a lot more consideration and respect than this. But before this message was posted, I hadn't heard a word about Stargate, and I suspect that most of the people on the net hadn't. I wish that somebody had posted something to net.general or net.announce to alert people to what was going on in net.news.stargate before Mr. Adrian got around to it. This is an important point in the development of Usenet, and I think people should have been made aware of it before now. As I see it, the reason that people are so worried is that there will be some sort of moderation on almost all newsgroups. But what sort of moderation are we going to have? If the only problem is to protect Usenet from possible legal problems, I suspect that only a very small fraction of articles will be susceptible to censoring. Dirty jokes, communist propaganda, and so forth isn't the sort of thing that should be censored. In fact, aside from quotes of copywrighted materials, I haven't seen a single article (except perhaps for Frank Adrian's, ironically enough) that is appropriate for censoring. But if the purpose of censoring is to make sure that news is of higher quality than it has been so far, all I can say is that if people start to throw out articles because they feel that the things discussed have been discussed before, or because they personally don't like what is being said, or even that it has been posted to the wrong groups, I will stop reading netnews. The ONLY purpose of censorship should be to make sure that Usenet will not be held legally responsible for what is posted, and I would very much like to hear the people in charge of the Stargate project adopt this position. Aside from this one point, I am very much in favor of Stargate, because it offers Usenet a chance to go from being a second-class network held together by bubblegum and string to a position of respectability. UUCP just won't cut it any more. The only thing to worry about is that in the conversion to Stargate the nature of Usenet will be changed too much, in the wrong ways. Wayne
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/18/85)
I sincerely hope that Lauren doesn't pull out his support because of the
insane ramblings of people who really don't know what they are talking
about, but if he does, I can't blame him. For many of the same reasons he
uses I've found myself pulling back and spending a lot less time working my
guts out trying to keep the net running or trying to improve it. Every time
anyone does anything that looks like an attempt to change something
(better, worse, or simply different) there is always a small but vocal
group of people who seem to get their kicks by trying to tear down any
constructive action at all. I've spent a LOT of time on the net, and Lauren
has spent a LOT of time on Stargate, and Rick has spent a LOT of time on
the source, and Gene ha spent a LOT of time on keeping things straight, and
Mark, well, Mark has spent more of his (and his wife's) time than all of us
put together, cubed. None of us (contrary to what I expect we'll hear
shortly) get paid for this. A lot of times we wonder why we bother, and
every so often we get real frustrated and yell at each other to make sure
the net doesn't see it (if it did, that frustration tends to turn into
month long pitched battles).
Look. We aren't fascists. People who insist on calling us fascists don't
have any idea what that word really means. We aren't out for mind control,
we aren't out for power, we aren't out for anything but a smoothly running
net. Because we have to deal with the net on a day to day (sometimes hour
to hour basis) and talk to a LOT of the people who run the net, I think we
have a different view of the net than the people who simply have the
priviledge of using the damn thing. There are a number of people out there
that I don't consider qualified to change the disk drives on MacDuff that
seem to think they know as much about the operation of the net as Mark, the
software as Rick, or Stargate as Lauren. I mean, seriously-- if you haven't
spent months bickering with the carriers lawyers, how in the HELL can you
suggest seriously that we really don't need moderators or that we can do it
in software?
If you people seriously want to try to get along without a group of
overworked and harried people who happen to spend a lot of time keeping
this thing running so you can bitch at us about it, then fine. Let me know.
I'll rmgroup mod.singles, I'll unsubscribe to net.news, and I'll laugh if
and when the system dies. We can cancel Stargate, we can watch the
backbones start restricting news, the software can get flakey, and, if you
could get it through the garbage, everyone who is yelling at the fascists
for trying to do a thankless job would spend just as much time yelling at
us for letting it fall apart. I don't know about the rest of them, but I
am sometimes tempted to just step back and watch the damn thing die. I have
a Macintosh I seems to spend most of my time using as a terminal to work on
net related things. I'd much rather work on Mac related things, personally.
I know Gene would LOVE to finish his thesis without going insane, and Mark
has this wonderful child due any time, and Rick would love a good nights
sleep. Lauren would LOVE to pay his rent next month.
If you want to take over my slot running news, have fun. A few things to
keep in mind:
type fast, and have lots of disk. I average between .25 and 1 megabyte
of mail a week. I spend between 45 minutes and two hours a day on mail,
about half of that on news, answering questions like 'My inews
coredumped. how do I fix it?'
Have a company that doesn't mind phone bills, lots of disk space,
random changes to the usenet software. I have, at various times, been
running three simultaneous versions of news, with three full databases,
as I try to keep a production version up, test an old version somewhere
else looking for an inews or an expire bug, and attempte to beta test a
new version of software for you so it has some chance of being stable
when it gets out to the rest of you. Most of who, of course, won't
bother to upgrade, bringing me to
Know the software. You can't only operate on 2.10.2 (or 2.10.3) on
4.2, you have to understand how that affects 2.10.1, 2.10, notes,
system V, PDP11's, Genix, Venix, Xenix, Kleenix, and the phase of the
moons and tides. I recently posted a discussion of sys files,
researched VERY heavily through 4 versions of news and uncounted forms
of Unix, and things still slipped through my fingers. Most people seem
to do nothing more than compile news, install it, and then bitch about
the quality. I've found myself dreaming designs for news enhancements.
Those kinds of nightmares I don't need.
Get a bottle of aspirin. Large. The second you stand up as a public
figure, someone will attempt to knock you back down. Guaranteed. Some
people rate their own successes by how they ruin others. Maalox helps,
too.
Tact, tact, and more tact. One of the things you can't do when you are
working on something like the net is let your own personal views take
precedence. We've bent over backwards (in my case and in Laurens,
almost to the breaking point, it seems) to keep our personal views to a
minimum. If I really WAS fascist, and if I really DID run the then the
way some people accuse me, this net would run a lot better than it
does, because I wouldn't take the shit I see out there. I do a number
of things I don't particularly care for because the majority of the
users prefer it that was. Some fascism. People yell at you, you don't
yell back (I am now, but that is becasue I find I'm not sure I really
care anymore). You smile, and try to talk calmly. People make
outrageous suggestions (hey, why don't we rewrite all the news software
to include a way of passing encrypted love letters across the ethernet
to VMS systems? By next week? And when you're done, fly out here and
install it in my system, OK? and I'll yell for you to fix it if I find
a bug') and assume they get done by magic. People out there take a hell
of a lot for granted, as far as I can tell (not everyone-- we see
constructive suyggestions, advice, thank you notes, and the like as
well, but always from mostly the same small group that always helps
out). This place isn't magic-- it is blood, and sweat, and tears, and
ulcers. You want to use your blood and sweat and tears and stomach
acid, fine. What I've found is that the people who really like to yell
tend to disappear when faced with actually having to stand up and
produce.
I could go on yelling forever, and I probably should because it is
making me feel better, but I can feel those 'F' key fingers itching out
there. Let me close with the following comments:
o I wish I understood why I take this abuse. If I did, I probably
wouldn't.
o Regardless of what I say in my saner moments (like this) I'll
probably continue to be stupid and work to make the damned net better
for all of you, despite everything you do to discourage me.
o I hope Lauren does the same, although I don't blame him if he
doesn't.
o I wish this silly machine was on the Arpanet. It may be moderated, it
may be fascist, it may not have complete freedom of expression (which,
as far as I can tell, means allowing people to make complete asses of
themselves with no checks and balances whatsoever) and it may not have
all the useless topics that this network has, but it works, dammit.
o I can't say the same for this net. Usenet is broken, has been for a
while, and will continue to get worse until someone is allowed to do
some work fixing it. yelling, screaming, and bitching doesn't do it.
Finding ways of fixing it and giving people the ability to do it does.
usenet is marginally functional at best. Stargate is a way, I hope, to
help that. I think it is a good way. Which means, of course, that it
has no chance in hell of succeeding.
o May all those people whose only contribution to usenet is the
mindless flaming of the intelligent people be infected by the fleas of
a thousand camels.
o go ahead, send mail. If I wasn't a masochist, I wouldn't be here.
sincerely, the same to you
the fascist pig, megalomaniac supreme, power hungry, tactless, and
general all around idiot.
--
From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
Do not wait until tomorrow to tell someone you care. Tomorrow doesn't
always come.alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (01/18/85)
> Any message that is to be transmitted through STARGATE will be > screened by a moderator for "suitability of content", "possibility > of libel", and other vague criteria which only he moderators will > know... In short, you can call it moderation, but it's still a > euphemism for censorship... > So the only thing I can suggest is to try to stop STARGATE in any > way possible. Let the people who conceived of this know that it > is not appreciated. E-Mail bomb them. Flame them until they drop. > If you see them in public, spit on them. Hide dog turds in their > desks. Disrupt the next USENIX meeting. Check with your local ACLU > to see if there are any legal means to stop this. Harass them in > any way possible. Who's trying to censor whom? > Stop the STARGATE, > Frank Adrian -- Stop Frank Adrian, Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (01/18/85)
A lot of us have been following what Lauren has been telling us about the
Stargate work. If you're like me, you've been watching, pondering what's
going on, and wishing there were some way to help a little--you know, lend
a hand here or there without getting up to your ears in it 'cause you're
already overcommitted.
After reading the tripe that Frank Adrian posted about Stargate, it's clear
to me what we need to do. If he wants to hear what we think about his
attempt to abort an experiment before it even gets going, let's let him
hear. If you would like to see Stargate given a chance, e-mail to Adrian
and let him know that you're not about to start leaving dog turds in
anyone's desk to stop Stargate, nor are you about to start harrassing
people and skirting the law.
If you're a member of the ACLU, you might choose to take up with Mr. Adrian
the matter that it is NOT a tenet of that organization to do whatever it
can to prevent a citizen from exercizing his rights. Nor is the ACLU big
on organized harrassment of individuals (regardless of whether the
harrassment is from inside or outside of the government).
Lauren's posting is (504@vortex.uucp) and is referenced by this article.
The text of Frank Adrian's article is included in it. Adrian's email
address is hercules!franka, according to the path in the header.
At this point, I wouldn't blame Lauren if he dropped the whole thing--but I
still hope very much that he doesn't. Dammit, people are trying to shoot
this thing down before it's even been tried. We don't have any idea
whether it will work in practice or what unexpected benefits or problems it
will turn up. And here's this Adrian clod who's willing to spit on a guy
and hide turds in his desk to prevent him from even TRYING the idea.
Sounds like rampant paranoia, or else something he needs to hide.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.dave@ur-valhalla.UUCP (Dave Carlson) (01/18/85)
USENET GODS:
I am a simple reader and occasional poster. I have experienced a
large amount of trash and I don't appreciate the posters of it.
I *do* express a great deal of intrepidation at the thought of
moderation of this open forum. I can see the need for something
(a fluff filter) but before you commit to a plan of action, can
you inform us, the users of the net just what kind of 'moderation'
we can expect.
Also, at this site in western ny we get absurd traffic such as
San Fransisco's and NJ yumyum and other mis-sent stuff. Perhaps
net traffic can be reduced by keeping local nets *local*.
I feel its unfortunate that Mr. Adrian came on so strong and I think
you all do a very good job. I do not flame him though--I'm sure
that emotion got the better of judgement.
(PS Lauren don't quit--the users still love you!!)
--
Dave Carlson
{allegra,seismo,decvax}!rochester!ur-valhalla!davewjt@hound.UUCP (Bill Taggart) (01/18/85)
Because of Frank Adrian's diatribe posted to too many newsgroups,
I decided to resubscribe to net.news and read all the back articles
on stargate that were still available.
I don't want get into a debate about censorship and whether the moderation
of all the newsitems forwarded through stargate constitutes censorship.
However, I am very concerned about Mr. Adrian's suggestion that stargate
should be stopped at all costs. I wonder what he will advocate if his
harassment tactics fail. I hope that other usenet readers will not take
his maniacal ravings seriously and realize that his latest posting is just
a means of venting his frustration.
Personally, I support the stargate experiment and hope that is does
provide telecommunications cost savings. Although I am not familiar
with exactly what type of mechanized (software) moderation is being
proposed, I support anything that will clean up a lot of the
shotgun postings and the propensity of too many individuals to provide
verbatim quotes of 150 line articles when they only have 5 lines of
comments.
During the past five months that I have been on usenet I have found it
to be an extremely useful source of information, both in my business
and personal life. However, I have found it necessary to unsubscribe
from an increasing number of groups because of the overwhelming amount
of material. Unfortunately, most of that material is redundant. If
something can be done to clean up the multiple postings and tendancy
to over-quote than I will happily resubscribe to other news groups.
I think those individuals who have spent countless hours in selfless
support of usenet and stargate deserve our thanks and our support.
--
Bill Taggart
...ihnp4!houxm!hound!wjtafo@pucc-h (Flidais ) (01/18/85)
An open letter to those people who have been flaming about the "stargate" and alleged censorship: Exactly *what* is your problem? Have you seen any rampant censorship in the mod.* groups in the last few months? Do you really have such a twisted view of those people who are running the net that you would possibly believe that they are capable of blatant censorship? And where did you get the idea that posting to the net is some sort of deity or government given right? The people who are running the net are volunteering for it. No one pays them to do what they do, and what they do takes quite a bit of time out of their day and their lives. Yet they take the time, and the flames, and they keep the net running. Do you people think the net is a perpetual motion machine? It breaks, it has new sites coming on the network constantly, and different news versions (did you think everyone has the same machines, the same configurations, and the same versions?); and yet, somehow, they manage to keep the network working. And, you know, the best they get out of the users is nothing at all. When the net works, no one says anything. But let some part of the net go haywire, and they get flamed. I don't see any of the flamers volunteering to take care of the problem. As to the censoring, well, do you really think that what you say (and who you are) is *so* important that people will censor you outright? Don't you think that the moderators will have better things to do than to plot against you? Come down off of your imagined throne. The moderating is due to tiny little laws having to do with such things as libel and slander suits and use of the airwaves for such purposes. That's so the entire net doesn't go away the first time somebody tries to play defamation of character. Not because someone wants to get his/her jollies out of keeping someone else off the net. And how is you "plan" to harass them into doing what you want any better than what you think they'll do to you? I think you're being much more of a censor (do it my way, or I'll harass you into doing my way) than they would ever be. Why don't you be a little more mature? So why don't all you people who have been flaming about stargate, and the alleged "censorship" sit back and think about how the net is run, and all those people who run the net. Then, when you come back to reality, you might send a little mail thanking them.... Laurie Sefton pucc-k!afo
marcum@rhino.UUCP (Alan M. Marcum) (01/18/85)
Hard to figure out quite what to say. I haven't exactly been a
vociferous participant in the Net, but I have certainly enjoyed
it. I hope to continue enjoying it.
Chuqui, I'm gald you finally sounded off, and I apologize -- not
because I complained, but because I didn't say thank you, at
least not enough times, nor loudly enough. Unfortunately, this
happens all too frequently -- nobody says anything unless it's
bad, or complaining, until somebody finally has had enough.
Well, I don't really know all the people to thank. Chuqui, Mark
and Karen, Gene, Rick, Lauren, Larry Wall, Lou Katz, Mark Stein
(our local news guru -- catch his talk in Dallas!), many, many of
the site admins, and on and on and on. Thank you. Folks who
keep the Net running. Folks who contribute their thoughts, their
time, their talents. Folks who even keep the Bay Area stuff
alive. I don't know most of you, but thank you.
I'm afraid maybe we've waited until tomorrow, and tomorrow might
not come.
--
Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California
...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rhino!marcumgadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/19/85)
--
Chuq, Lauren--oy, do I know where you're coming from! Once upon a
time in another life, I ran a housing co-op organization for $200
a month. Most of the members were students or miscellaneous
transients with a "no deposit no return" philosophy. The sh*t I
got when I asked for a raise! I even drew fire when I tried to
get the organization involved in community activities, and I wasn't
at all prepared for resistance to fixing a few roofs. And the same
sort of epithets you're getting--you fascist, power-hungry, etc.
It came from a few juveniles so fascinated by the hypothetical
limits of their precious freedom--you try to encourage ANY kind of
long-range responsibility and they pull a tantrum. And some would
get into fights, break furniture, start fires, but no matter what
hour of the day or night, ol' Perlow would drag himself over and pick
up the pieces. After 2 years of that, in the spring of 1976, I
submitted my resignation. I can still remember its last sentence:
"If I'm wrong I'll wake from my dreams, and if I'm right I'll dance on
your graves."
Chuq and Lauren, that rambling was just to say that some of us out here
appreciate your efforts more than you heretofore knew. I'll say "hang
in there", but I'll understand if you don't.
And to Frank Adrian and his supporters, if any, let me explain a little
about co-operation, a subject I have some battlefield experience with:
Anarchic systems (like Usenet here) are based on trust. If there is
mutual trust, any protocol will work; if there is no trust, no protocol
will work. The protocol, in the sense of an overall direction and
decision-making methodology, is therefore irrelevant. What really
counts is the trust. Think about it.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 18 Jan 85 [29 Nivose An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/20/85)
To repeat. I don't have personal archives of all the discussions. They
are massive. Perhaps someone who has *everything* can make this fact known
so that people who want to read the whole mass can do so. The collected
articles spell out in detail the various issues regarding screening,
technical and financial limitations, and a variety of flames as well.
--Lauren--
P.S. It really isn't clear how best to make "general" announcements
on Usenet without having half the net flame at you about
inappropriate postings.
--LW--bae@fisher.UUCP (Shiva the Destroyer) (01/20/85)
Let's all just calm down.
--
Brian A. Ehrmantraut
Ad Maioram Gloriam Hasturi!
UUCP: {allegra, astrovax, princeton, twg} !fisher!bae
BELL: (609) 452-8991 / (609) 734-7761
USnail: 184 Little Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/20/85)
There's a lot of acrimony and ill feeling going on here that is not productive and not relevant. There are also some important points that seem to be getting ignored in what has turned into personal attacks and personal defenses. I hope nobody out there really believes that the people behind Stargate are doing it because they want to control the content of the net. That's silly. I hope the people who are working for Stargate don't think that those opposed to it are just naturally contrary. That's blind. It has seemed obvious to me that the kind of net that we've had for some time cannot possibly continue in its present form. I learned about this kind of network using Plato's notesfiles; it was not uncommon for a discussion to take place on that net in essentially real time -- reply following statement about as fast as one could type. You can do that when every site talks to every site all the time. The idea of adding a layer of moderation is appalling to me as much for the added delay time as for the censorship. And it is censorship, by definition, whether it's necessary or not. But a network with many thousands of participants, many of them days apart in transit time, cannot be the same beast it has been. And the number of sites that take everything is bound to decrease with the continued growth in the number of groups and the volume of submissions. I don't have any answers to the problems. I think it's going to be necessary to have some kind of moderation sooner or later -- it just isn't possible to keep up with everything. I don't like the idea of editing and I don't like the idea of moderator's screening things for form, but I think that sooner or later there are going to be true digests where there were open groups, 'true digests' meaning that someone does the work of reading submissions and selecting the ones that are worth reading. I think there will be multiple digests in any given subject area, just as there are bunches of magazines on the newstand in any given area. And I think they'll be paid for, somehow. I don't really like this vision, but I have a very hard time imagining what benefit one is going to derive from an open notesfile with thousands of submissions a day, and that's not that far from where we are now. So don't fight Stargate just because it's different. The net is going to be different whether you like it or not; the volume is going to make it qualitatively different even if it's technical nature doesn't change. DO fight for what you think is important in the net. I think diversity is an important part of that. I think the openness is important. I think speed and reliability of distribution are important. Consider your own criteria and make them known to those who are making things work and are working on possible futures for the net. They need to remember that the net, working or not, would be pretty pointless without the community of people who read and write the notes and that there's no point in spending a lot of energy moving towards a net that the users wouldn't use. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/21/85)
The demo will proceed in Dallas as planned. --Lauren--
tbm@hou2a.UUCP (T.MERRICK) (01/21/85)
Oh for gosh sakes, Sorry I can't resist. Our public press which receives much credit for our *greatness* is all EDITED (read moderated). Now lets not have a long discussion of thos two terms! Tom Merrick ATT BTL MV
davew@shark.UUCP (Dave Williams) (01/21/85)
As a Tek employee I would like to cast my vote FOR the Stargate
project and for the people who have volunteered their time to
make it happen. At the rate the net is growing and the amount of
traffic increase it should be obvious to the most casual observer
(as they use to say in math textbooks) that the net can not
continue to function as it has in the past. The Stargate concept
makes sense and if moderating the newsgroups are required to
accomplish it then I think that is a small price to pay.
One need only recall the posting of several months ago
by a disgruntled student at a Canadian University claiming
his professor was engaged in aberrant sexual behaviour with
a duck to understand why moderation of the newsgroups is
necessary to protect the common carrier. Possible copyright
infringement has also been a problem and the only means of
providing some protection is to run the articles by a moderator.
Stargate is a good move technically and politically. Let's
give it a try before we condemn it as a tool of an alleged
clique.
Dave Williams
P.S. Gee, I was able to write this entire article without
calling anyone a jerk.
"There is a time to laugh and a time not to laugh
and this is not one of them."ctk@ecsvax.UUCP (Tim Kelley) (01/22/85)
I hate to break into a serious discussion like this but I have a question. Could a message advocating hiding dog turds in someone's desk make it through the stargate moderation process? If not, good. -- C.T. Kelley decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!ctk Dept. of Math. N.C. State U. Box 8205 Raleigh, N.C. 27695-8205, 919-737-3300
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (01/22/85)
> Let's all just calm down. > -- > Brian A. Ehrmantraut *** REPLACE THIS MESS *** Hey, what's all the hoopla? Frank Adrian barged in to a bunch of the groups I need and said that the net is going to change. Well all I want to know is, SEZ WHO ? It seems there are people who have self-appointed themselves to positions of "Caretaker" and whatever they think is right is going to happen. I ask you, SEZ WHO ? Who exactly is LAUREN ? Who elected this person to moderate/censor ANYTHING? Normally when there are changes to the way this thing works, there is a big debate, and eventually some sort of consensus is reached. STARGATE seems to be being handled a lot differently: some folks decided it would be better to route the traffic via satellite instead of groundlines and started efforts to make that happen. What galls me is that this idea (like a LOT of software "improvements") is being done wihtout consulting the user community. You get what you get. Big deal. Why is this idea so sacrosanct that it cannot be submitted for approval before implementation? Why the friggin' SECRECY? Gary Benson (!fluke!inc) -- Gary Benson m/s232e -*- John Fluke Mfg Co Box C9090 -*- Everett WA 98206 USA {microsoft,allegra,ssc-vax,sun,sb1}{decvax,ihnp4,tektronix!uw-beaver}!fluke!inc -_-_-_-andthewordsoftheprophetswerewrittenonthesubwaywalls,tenementhalls-_-_-_-
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (01/22/85)
> A lot of us have been following what Lauren has been telling us about the > Stargate work. If you're like me, you've been watching, pondering what's > going on, and wishing there were some way to help a little--you know, lend > a hand here or there without getting up to your ears in it 'cause you're > already overcommitted. > > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 Well, if we can't supply time or expertise, maybe we can supply money. I don't know about the rest of the USENET community, but I value my time. If Lauren's work leads to newsgroups with less duplication, even to the extent of eliminating repetitious answers to questions and followup repeats of original articles, it would save me hours of time each week. I'm willing to contribute to supporting the Stargate experiment, and to supporting Lauren in the interim. I'm willing to contribute $25 per month. All I ask in return is an occasional update on how things are going. I ask Lauren if he will accept the support of the other believers inthis project. I challenge the rest of the net to match my offer with whatever you think your time is worth. Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder / Ad Astra! (To the Stars!) / (206)773-4545
davew@shark.UUCP (Dave Williams) (01/24/85)
I believe the only reason someone could say that Stargate has been
kept a secret is that person is unsubscribed to net.news and
several of the other news groups were the discussion has been
going on for sometime. Also, be advised that Stargate is an
experiment. The results of the experiment may lead to a
recommendation for implementation or cancellation based on the
outcome of the test. At this time nothing has changed nor will it
for the near term. I think Stargate is an exciting concept that
needs our full support. The Stargate concept could guarantee
the health of the net for a long time to come. Doing no
planning for the future will probably guarantee that it will
wither away as site afer site withdraws because the costs
are too high. After all, what does net.motss, net.flame or
net.younameit have to do with the work most of us are
engaged in? How long can we expect our employers (or schools)
will foot the bill for these non work (non academic) news
groups?
Dave Williamsfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/25/85)
> Who exactly is LAUREN ? Who elected this person to moderate/censor ANYTHING? > Normally when there are changes to the way this thing works, there is a big > debate, and eventually some sort of consensus is reached. STARGATE seems to > be being handled a lot differently: some folks decided it would be better to > route the traffic via satellite instead of groundlines and started efforts > to make that happen. > > What galls me is that this idea (like a LOT of software "improvements") is > being done wihtout consulting the user community. You get what you get. Big > deal. Why is this idea so sacrosanct that it cannot be submitted for > approval before implementation? Why the friggin' SECRECY? > > Gary Benson (!fluke!inc) Just because you have been too lazy to follow the debate, why call it "secret"? Look, the thing is just an experiment, and if anything important comes out of it, there probably will be a lot more debate than there has been so far. And who are you to criticize those people who are willing to donate their time to making things better for the rest of us. I don't see you spending any time on Usenet... And Lauren isn't moderating or censoring ANYBODY. At least get your facts straight before you attack people like this. Wayne
dave@circadia.UUCP (dave) (01/27/85)
It is unfortunate that Frank Adrian chose to make his appeal in such an emotional and offensive manner. The points he made may well be overshadowed by the language he used to state them. I realize that the promoters of STARGATE have nothing but good intentions in developing the idea, but as Mr. Adrian points out, there may be a danger of losing something important in the quest for a better method of transmitting the news. Usenet, as it now exists, is something perhaps unique in the world: an uncensored, world-wide, open forum. It has become more than just a method for a bunch of programmers to exchange ideas on an operating system. Where else can one discuss the deployment of cruise missles directly with the people most affected? Where else can one discuss his political or moral convictions with a more diverse audience? This network, or one like it, has the potential to defuse one of the most potent weapons of tyranny: censorship. It would be a shame to lose this aspect of the net. So, with this prologue, here are some random comments on Lauren's posting: > ... I've had several people > already suggest to me that I or Usenix should take legal action > against the author of the message, under one or more of several > strong legal grounds. I would be interested in hearing what legal grounds were suggested, Mr. Adrian didn't mention any names in his article, so how did he harm you personally? > If the hassle level about this stuff continues to rise, I will pull > out and I will recommend to the satellite carrier that they pull > out as well. If you don't want to do what you are doing, don't do it. I appreciate the work that you and others have done in getting the net up and running, but when you are dealing with a group of thousands of individuals (and individualists), you can't expect NOT to get hassled when you try to do ANYTHING. I don't think it helps matters to threaten to take your ball and not play anymore, just because everyone doesn't agree with you. > The ONLY way stargate can work is through moderation. Why is this? The post office and AT&T don't seem to be getting sued by people using their services for slander, or even illegal purposes. Why should another carrier get in trouble for data that they have no knowledge or control over? (I realize that in the real world, legal matters don't have to be based on rational reasons...I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to be as cut-and-dried as you make it.) I'm not against moderation for the majority of the news groups; net.sources or net.unix etc. can't be hurt much by it as long as the moderators only delete messages that would cause legal problems. I would be totally against moderation of groups such as net.politics or net.religion though. Perhaps a compromise could be made with the backbone sites in which these groups would be transmitted normally, while other groups could go through STARGATE. I should point out that, technically, I think STARGATE is a wonderful idea...it is only on the issue of moderation (censorship) that I have some reservations. -- Dave Messer ...inhp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/27/85)
I appreciate the offer, but I really don't think it is appropriate for me to accept money (other than reimbursement of my direct expenses, which Usenix is currently handling) for the experiment at this stage of the game. Yes, I'm spending a lot of time on it for which I am not reimbursed, but I realized that would be the case when I started. If the project expands to the point where I find myself spending too much more time than I am now, I may have to rethink this position, simply from the standpoint of self-preservation, but that time has not yet been reached and probably wouldn't until we had a number of sites actually receiving materials on a regular basis. That would entail much new software, new hardware, and more time just trying to keep the wheels spinning. For a real service, I don't think we can indefinitely rely on volunteer labor. This would include people like me and also people like moderators or others who would be directly supporting the project. Everyone's time has some value and they would deserve to be reimbursed fairly for that time. But personally, at this time, I don't think we're at the stage where time reimbursement would be appropriate. I admit I could use the bucks, but I really wouldn't feel right about it at this time. --Lauren--
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/28/85)
> I believe the only reason someone could say that Stargate has been > kept a secret is that person is unsubscribed to net.news and > several of the other news groups were the discussion has been > going on for sometime. ---------- This is an area of sufficiently broad interest (no matter where you stand, you've got to admit it's a fundamental change in the nature of the net) that someone should have thought to say something in one of the more widely read lists long ago. I don't think anyone set out to keep it a secret, I just think nobody thought of it. ---------- > ... How long can we expect our employers (or schools) > will foot the bill for these non work (non academic) news > groups? ---------- As long as the perceived benefit of the technical material is higher than the perceived cost of the non-technical material. scott preece gould/csd-urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/29/85)
In article <10300006@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >> ... How long can we expect our employers (or schools) >> will foot the bill for these non work (non academic) news >> groups? >---------- >As long as the perceived benefit of the technical material is higher >than the perceived cost of the non-technical material. This is a pretty flimsy argument - it seems to assume that getting USENET news is an "all or nothing" decision. Since it is possible, with some work and the cooperation of your news feed, to get only a certain set of groups, the benefit of the technical material can be obtained without the cost of the non-technical material. So how do you propose to justify this cost if asked? "I can't be bothered turning off the non-technical stuff" isn't likely to be accepted as a good reason. Something along the lines of "our users/employees value the non-technical groups so let's do this as a favour to them" is, to me, a much better justification. And the only really valid one I can think of.
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (01/30/85)
In article <10300006@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >> ... How long can we expect our employers (or schools) >> will foot the bill for these non work (non academic) news >> groups? >---------- >As long as the perceived benefit of the technical material is higher >than the perceived cost of the non-technical material. I would say "as long as the perceived benefit of the material is higher than the perceived cost". Scott's statement implies that the non-technical material is not useful, which is false. It is really a perquisite (perk), and perks are beneficial to the company. In other words, you have, as part of the ability to look at the technical groups, the ability to do read other newsgroups which interest you. This is not unlike other perks companies and schools provide employees and students. So as part of the perceived benefits of the overall cost CAN be (if the company/school chooses to view it this way) happier employees/students. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
sheldon@circadia.UUCP (Scott Bertilson) (01/30/85)
After listening to the talk by Susan Nycum at USENIX on USENET legal issues, I was left wondering if her talk didn't imply that exercising control (any control?) over what is broadcast wouldn't cause USENET to be viewed by the courts as a broadcaster (and thus be entirely responsible for everything that was "broadcast"). This led me to think that broadcasting moderated newsgroups might imply control and legalities would cause the situation to be reversed making it easier to have wide-open newsgroups than moderated ones over StarGate. -- Scott (sheldon) Bertilson ...inhp4!circadia!sheldon
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/31/85)
> Something along the lines of "our users/employees value the non- > technical groups so let's do this as a favour to them" is, to me, a > much better justification. And the only really valid one I can think > of. ---------- Oh, I agree. I don't think the arguments separate that easily -- I felt that your point was implicit in mine. I think any site that gets only part of the feed will be under constant user pressure to get the rest AND will not get as much benefit from the technical material since people will not have as much incentive to make reading them part of their normal day. As I've said elsewhere, though, I favor a more active approach. I think technical posters who believe in a free net should add a copyright statement to their postings giving permission to disseminate only to media that forward ALL postings. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (02/03/85)
[Aren't you hungry...?] I have not been follwing the STARGATE discussion, but it sounds as though STARGATE censorship is proposed as a cost cutting measure. Cost cutting is a fact of life - ask any college student why he can't go out to dinner on a random night. It also sounds as though the backbone sites have two problems: 1) Remarkably high phone bills 2) High disk usage. Disk usage can be reduced by lowering the amount of time a given article stays around. A site might accept news, forward it, and clear out (perhaps selectively) those articles or newsgroups it doesn't want. I am aware that this involves a substantial investment in new netnews software, but with due respect to Lauren, this has been needed for a long time, and it seems that the current costs would make hiring someone on a contractual basis to do it well worthwhile. With the number of sites out there using netnews, charging some small fee (say $50) would provide ample return on the investment. The solution has drawbacks, some of them serious, but might be considered. On the limitations of telephone bills, two things come to mind: First, AT&T rates will drop substantially about a year and a half from now as a by product of deregulation. Let's all remember that if we hold out until then we get some breathing space. It sounds as though the real problem is telephone costs, and STARGATE bandwidth (I would think) should be high enough that the censorship is not necessary but for the issue of legal responsibility. The phone company has dealt with this for a long time. As they have a vested interest in usenet, perhaps they could tell us more about the legal constraints on stargate. Another approach might be to try to get the courts to clear this issue up... Jon Shapiro
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (02/04/85)
In article <133@circadia.UUCP> dave@circadia.UUCP (dave) writes: >Why is this? The post office and AT&T don't seem to be getting >sued by people using their services for slander, or even illegal >purposes. Why should another carrier get in trouble for data >that they have no knowledge or control over? Usenet (with or without Stargate) is fundamentally different from AT&T or the post office in two important ways: (a) AT&T and the post office are point-to-point services. You phone one person, or you send a letter to one person. Usenet is a broadcast service - you post something and large numbers of people see it. (b) AT&T and the post office charge for their services. You pay for every letter you send, or every phone call you make. Usenet does not charge for posting things, but depends on each site forwarding the news. It especially depends on the backbone sites forwarding more than their fair share of the news (and paying more than their fair share of the phone bills) to get the news forwarded. From a legal standpoint, neither of these differences matters. (In my non-legally trained opinion, at the current time.) From a practical standpoint, they are crucial. When traffic volume increases, AT&T and the post office love it - that's more money in their pockets. When it increases beyond their capacity to handle it, there is enough money coming in to build new trunk lines or delivery capacity. Also, increased phone or mail traffic doesn't bother the other users, as they just see what they originate or what has been specifically sent to them. On Usenet, extra traffic overloads the backbone hosts (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the machines on the net) and overloads the capacity of people to read it. >I'm not against moderation for the majority of the news groups; >net.sources or net.unix etc. can't be hurt much by it as long >as the moderators only delete messages that would cause legal >problems. I would be totally against moderation of groups such >as net.politics or net.religion though. Perhaps a compromise could >be made with the backbone sites in which these groups would >be transmitted normally, while other groups could go through STARGATE. Suppose that high volume nontechnical newsgroups were localized, that is, each region (city, state, whatever makes sense locally) has its own copy of the newsgroup, and discussions only took place locally? Which newsgroups would be hurt significantly by such a breakup? Clearly net.politics would change in character, since it would become either local.politics or local.view.of.world.politics. Which other overloaded newsgroups would be fundamentally changed in character? If we can make a list of newsgroups that really (REALLY) need to stay network wide, perhaps we can make some arrangements for them and localize the others. Mark
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (02/06/85)
Please. If you're going to point somebody "new" at the stargate issues, please also point them at the voluminous numbers of old articles that most sites have probably collected by now on this topic. It's somewhat distressing to see people say, "I'm new to this discussion, so why not this and that..." when those exact same issues (and possibly the same misconceptions) have been covered again and again in earlier messages. I realize that many sites will have flushed the older messages, but to the extent that they are still online, please encourage people to read over the back messages before starting to contribute their thoughts on this topic. Thanks. --Lauren--
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/15/86)
Due to a number of inquiries from people who don't regularly read net.news.stargate, I thought I'd mention here that the prototype Stargate buffer box (an inexpensive 68000-based board) has become available for firmware development. This board, which is slated for mass-production, is a major part of the national satellite/cable TV distribution system of Stargate and will serve to error-correct, flow control, and otherwise manage data from the Stargate decoders feeding from the satellite/cable TV feeds. The board serves to offload most of the processing overhead from the host computers which are the ultimate receivers of the transmitted data. A large number of persons have volunteered to work on the buffer box firmware, and as soon as a couple of logistical issues are worked out the firmware development will begin. Without going into details here, this seems like a good time to mention that Stargate is alive and well, and has entered a new aspect of its life--and "organizational" phase that must exist alongside the ongoing technical operations. A proposal that will move toward establishing Stargate as an available service, addressing a variety of "news" and mail issues, will be presented to Usenix for their consideration. Usenix has expressed a strong desire for this plan to be submitted, so that the issues surrounding a transition from Stargate "experiment" to "service" can be evaluated. My next significant public discussion of Stargate will be at the Atlanta Usenix this June. As always, I'm glad to talk to anyone with interest in the project. And of course, I want to thank all of you who have supported the project up to now--I hope we have your continuing support into the future as we move toward the goal of making actual Stargate services generally available. Thanks! --Lauren--