lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/05/85)
It occurs to me that we're trying to hold back an ocean with a sponge. Gang, there ain't NO WAY we can make this work. It's doomed. Strong statement? Yep. In the short run, trying to control newsgroup proliferation will help hold off the day of reckoning, and I think we should do so. But in the medium/long run I think that Usenet, in its current form, has had it. And medium-run may not be that far off. Look what's happening. Multitudes of new group requests. People creating groups WITHOUT requests. People trying to set up gateways to Usenet from other networks with God knows how many people on them. People still bitching that "moderated groups don't work on Usenet" or "violate their freedoms." Hell, the net as a whole can't even decide to delete a darkening cesspool like net.bizarre (which at one time definitely had considerable interesting content.) And every new group tends to create new traffic since somebody will always have SOMETHING to say about ANYTHING, and of course wants EVERYONE to read it. Plus we have the increasing number of small nodes which will eventually swamp the larger sites in terms of sheer numbers. It's going to be very sad to see this grand experiment slowly die, like a terminal patient being kept alive with life-support equipment but who gradually loses more and more of their sensibilities as they fade away. This network is now, and will rapidly continue to become, an incredibly expensive anachronism. And those of us brave enough (or stupid enough) to sit around long enough to watch are going to see a pretty ugly sight as many of the more creative elements of the network (both individuals and sites) gradually depart from our ranks and cause the signal/noise ratio to continue degrading. I offer no solution for the current environment. The cause of the problem is very clear, and is a lesson for us all: You can't run a totally unmoderated information environment successfully beyond a certain critical mass of submitters. You can have 100 million people reading a magazine... but you don't let 100 million, or even 1000, people send in articles every month and promise to publish them all, regardless of volume or content. You can publish everything that comes in when you have a small newsletter--but once you get above a certain size you have to start making decisions about what you want to publish both from a technical/cost standpoint and to keep the information channel from being swamped in noise. This is exactly the situation we have here--Usenet worked for a while but is simply too big. It doesn't scale up properly. One problem is that too many people tend to think only of their own interests and not of the net at large. THEY want to discuss some topic and HOW DARE the network refuse to carry it? The number of groups that already exist makes matters worse. "Hell, if net.foo already exists, why can't I create net.bar?" they ask. The curve of network degradation seems to definitely be non-linear. It may even be close to exponential. We seem to have recently passed a point on the graph where the slope is suddenly starting to get increasing oriented toward the vertical. It's gonna get a lot worse. --- Like I said, I don't have a solution other than to continue with my work on Stargate (which is proceeding well by the way) in the hopes of being able to provide a useful alternative for people in the near future. Since it hits all points at once (being a broadcast medium) and since all materials would be moderated in some manner, I hope it can avoid duplicating the problems we're seeing on Usenet now. And I do hope to be able to encompass many of the subject areas already on Usenet. --- One last thing. I'm not trying to blame anyone for this. The problems we're seeing are systemic, they aren't the result of any single person or groups' actions. Usenet started small and we kept piling on pieces. The nature of the network and the many unrelated entities involved in the net made this almost inevitable. We've all tried real hard to keep things running, even though most of us realize, deep inside, that the patient is dying. But some additional life-saving efforts may prolong the patient for a while longer... we may have a little bit of time left before the sheer numbers wipe us out. But though we may win occasional battles, I think we've already lost the war. The patient is terminal and cannot be prolonged indefinitely. Still, it has certainly been an interesting experience. --Lauren--
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (09/06/85)
In article <781@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >It occurs to me that we're trying to hold back an ocean with >a sponge. Gang, there ain't NO WAY we can make this work. >It's doomed. Strong statement? Yep. I agree. Completely. >In the short run, trying to control newsgroup proliferation will >help hold off the day of reckoning, and I think we should do so. >But in the medium/long run I think that Usenet, in its current form, >has had it. And medium-run may not be that far off. I would say that the medium long run is here. Articles are disappearing somewhere on the net, garbage is creeping into the so-called "good" newsgroups. Net.bizarre has taken on a life of its own and is spilling over into other groups (actually I though net.bizarre was an alias for USENET.) >Plus we have the increasing number of small nodes which will >eventually swamp the larger sites in terms of sheer numbers. Well, some old hands are more responsible for the proliferation of small nodes than others. :-> (grim amusement) >It's going to be very sad to see this grand experiment slowly die, >like a terminal patient being kept alive with life-support equipment >but who gradually loses more and more of their sensibilities >as they fade away. I don't think we have to wait around watching the network die. I think we need to cut our losses and move on. This is ridiculous! We know what the problems are, we know how to correct them, and all we need to do is act rather than sitting around with our thumbs up our armpits wailing and gnashing our teeth. I propose net.fascism Those who are aware and concerned about usenet's problems may not be able to control *all* the sites on the net, but they can at least exert influence at the backbone sites. If it net.bizarre needs to be destroyed, then simply refuse to transfer it up and down the backbone. If it is deemed necessary to destroy the soapbox groups, the same can be done to them. This groups may proliferate for a while as local groups, but without the worldwide feedback they will soon die out. If not, well nobody is influencing the content of purely local groups. Ultimately if we want to destroy the entire structure of usenet and replace it with moderated groups we can do that too. All it takes is a few key people in a few key places making a few key decisions. I don my asbestos suit and await the flames of the terminally libertarian and/or anarchic. I am *tired* of folks bemoaning the fate of usenet when, in fact, the fate of usenet is *our* responsibility. -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
nsadmin@midacs.UUCP (Linn Hower) (09/06/85)
The key points of the 93 line article, <781@vortex.UUCP>, from lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) are: > It occurs to me that we're trying to hold back an ocean with > a sponge. Gang, there ain't NO WAY we can make this work. > It's doomed. Strong statement? Yep. > And every new group tends to create new traffic since somebody > will always have SOMETHING to say about ANYTHING, and of course > wants EVERYONE to read it. *> our ranks and cause the signal/noise ratio to continue degrading.* *> I offer no solution for the current environment. The cause of the* > 1000, people send in articles every month and promise to publish > them all, regardless of volume or content. You can publish everything *> Like I said, I don't have a solution other than to continue with* > my work on Stargate (which is proceeding well by the way) in the hopes Lauren, Why don't you read what you write, and stay a little farther away from your postnews key. -- Linn Hower Phone: 208-526-9353 ...!ucbvax!ucdavis!midacs!isew02!linn
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (09/07/85)
It's not clear to me it's as bad as that. With the new 2.10.3, you
can disable automatic newsgroup creation. If something isn't in my
active file, it gets junked. Once we get most of the important sites
like the backbones running 2.10.3, it will be nearly impossible for
a rogue SA to create a bogus newsgroup and have it get very far.
Someone could post into the wrong group but he is sure to get letter
bombs in his mailbox if he does that enough. He probably won't get
any positive feedback. And if things don't clear up, his site or
his feed could be threatened with being cut off.
So I think we haven't really lost control yet. If in fact the S/N
ratio does keep getting worse, we could easily start an elitist
net. Perhaps it would be moderated. But I think something could
always be done...
--
The overseas Chinese are the Jews of Asia.
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAgam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (09/07/85)
Lauren is right in predicting the overwhelming collapse the
net could face in the future if things go on uncontrolled.
However:
The net is not going to collapse at a given time;
there will be warning signs, as there are now, so
people will have time to act.
I'm sure many site administrators could easily predict what
will (and does!) happen when their site can no longer accept
the load of news they are getting:
If you are sending full-blast news ('net' distribution),
see if you can cut off a few leaf sites, by getting
them other feeds (neat trick!) and/or reducing the total
amount of news passed to them.
Start expiring news faster (possibly selectively by newsgroup):
14 days, then 10, then 7, then 5, then .... ?
Reject certain newsgroups (probably the most rapidly expired
ones) outright.
I'm not sure what the next steps are. Since the size of the
user population is pointed at as a primary problem, I present
two scenarios:
(My favorite:) 'net' distribution becomes a special,
possibly priviledged, level. Use of local/regional
distributions is encouraged (or is default). Thus
you stll have Usenet but with a much smaller population.
(Lifeboat:) New sites will find it more and more difficult
to find a news feed. Growth will level off naturally
but it will probably be much worse than now.
Because of My Favorite above, I am encouraging -- right now --
that sites establish and utilize the local/regional distributions.
I hope that people will find, as we do in the ca.all groups, that
the local atmosphere of a regional net is so much more comfortable and
easy to manage, and restores a sense of quality in writer- and
readership (probably only because of a smaller population). And
besides, they may someday be all you have.
[ Incidently, I have proposed a distribution for the western
US states but this hasn't quite taken off yet .... ]
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gamchuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/07/85)
In article <3568@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >It's not clear to me it's as bad as that. With the new 2.10.3, you >can disable automatic newsgroup creation. If something isn't in my >active file, it gets junked. Once we get most of the important sites >like the backbones running 2.10.3, it will be nearly impossible for >a rogue SA to create a bogus newsgroup and have it get very far. Except that control messages will get passed on, meaning the group will end up getting created on every site that doesn't turn on that feature or upgrade. Also, if you do turn on that feature, and someone sends out a control message followed by the opening statements about the group, you get the opening statements junked. What if your SA is on vacation for a couple of weeks when the newgroup comes in? You simply lose all those messages... >Someone could post into the wrong group but he is sure to get letter >bombs in his mailbox if he does that enough. He probably won't get >any positive feedback. And if things don't clear up, his site or >his feed could be threatened with being cut off. Except the other idiots on the net WILL give positive feedback and egg them on. I can mention two cases, but I don't want to upset Scott Turner or Frank Adrian... Also, there is NO enforcement mechanism for turning a site off. The ONLY person who can do that is the immediate upstream SA, and what if they don't agree with you? Or don't even care? Empty threats are useless. >So I think we haven't really lost control yet. If in fact the S/N >ratio does keep getting worse, we could easily start an elitist >net. Perhaps it would be moderated. But I think something could >always be done... We? If it is elitist, who said you'd be invited onto it???? *smirk* -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/08/85)
Since I almost never post in non-technical groups (except an occasional net.tv or net.movies) I feel that an occasional lengthy analysis, to get people THINKING about the problems rather than just letting things continue plodding along like they are, is certainly not putting too much strain on the network. Also, my remarks from that message were pulled out of context, since I indeed did make suggestions about possible ways to handle the situation--they just don't fall into the category of "quick fixes" for the net. You have my permission to suggest YOUR solutions for fixing the network, Linn. In the past I've done my darndest to point out ways (including moderation) to help solve these problems, but they've been considered unacceptable by the folks who feel that they can just keep things the way they are and everything will work out. Sometimes people need something to jar them into thinking about the problems. But, c'mon Linn. Maybe you have some great solution that none of us old-timers who have been here since day one have thought of. I'll be waiting to hear it with baited breath. --Lauren--
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/08/85)
In a recent message I wrote: > In article <3568@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >we could easily start an elitist > >net. Perhaps it would be moderated. But I think something could > >always be done... > > We? If it is elitist, who said you'd be invited onto it???? *smirk* That comment was meant to be a harmless dig, and I would have said it to anyone. As a matter of fact, I'm not at all sure I'd invite ME onto whatever net USENET evolves into, much less Phil. Unfortunately, Phil took umbrage at what I had meant to be a harmless comment, so I hereby withdraw it. Phil, if I ever start an elitist network, consider yourself invited in. That goes for the rest of you, too. My apologies to anyone who took my 'joke' seriously... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (09/08/85)
In article <3223@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >In article <3568@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >>So I think we haven't really lost control yet. If in fact the S/N >>ratio does keep getting worse, we could easily start an elitist >>net. Perhaps it would be moderated. But I think something could > >We? If it is elitist, who said you'd be invited onto it???? *smirk* >-- >Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui Chuqui, I wrote to you and complained that I didn't appreciate such comments. Your response was that it was "a harmless remark" and you would say that to anyone. You also said some other nasty things about me which I won't repeat here. You never said you were sorry you said it. Fine, I don't need to be on a network with an insensitive fool like you anyway. Henceforth, AMD does not talk to NSC. Farewell. -- A hacker is someone who orders Sweet and Sour Bitter Melon just because it is "an impossible combination". Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (09/09/85)
One of my comrades here has suggested that at the least newsgroup CREATION messages be barred in software from 'control' and only allowed to go to a 'mod.control' that the backbones control. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (09/10/85)
Phil sez: So I think we haven't really lost control yet. If in fact the S/N ratio does keep getting worse, we could easily start an elitist net. Perhaps it would be moderated. But I think something could ... So, Chuq sez: We? If it is elitist, who said you'd be invited onto it???? *smirk* So (of course), Phil sez: Fine, I don't need to be on a network with an insensitive fool like you anyway. Henceforth, AMD does not talk to NSC. Farewell. "I'm taking my modem home..." ... come on guys. Does this need to be a personal thing? We're talking about network connectivity here, not just one person's feelings. I really have nothing to say about what you two think of each other, but does it have to manifest itself at the expense of Bay Area connectivity? Phil? You called me a "hairball" the other day (without, I might add, a "*smirk*"...), but did I go and find support from my SA to turn off AMD's feed from ucbvax? Geeze... this is how wars start. ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (09/10/85)
In article <3658@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > In article <3223@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >In article <3568@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > > > >We? If it is elitist, who said you'd be invited onto it???? *smirk* > >............. You never said you were sorry you said it. Fine, I don't need > to be on a network with an insensitive fool like you anyway. Henceforth, > AMD does not talk to NSC. Farewell. The *very* next article vnews showed me was Subject: Re: Proposal for starting net.peace. Ha!
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/11/85)
In article <3658@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > ....You never said you were sorry you said it. Fine, I don't need > to be on a network with an insensitive fool like you anyway. Henceforth, > AMD does not talk to NSC. Farewell. It seems that the elitism we all worried about wasn't the problem at all -- it looks like the big problem is system administrators choosing news feeds on the basis of personalities. Phil and Chuqui had a spat, and Phil took all his marbles and went home, unplugging his uucp connection with nsc as he did so. What a marvellously mature way of arranging network connections! Next thing you know, we'll do it on the basis of "my dad can beat your dad" and "You're funny-looking." Phil: you're the first one to publicly put elitism into practice. Are you going to announce a policy of "be nice to Phil or lose your news feeds," or do you plan to keep going on an ad hoc basis? Or, (please please please) was it just overreaction to Chuqui's unique prose style? -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/11/85)
> We? If it is elitist, who said you'd be invited onto it???? *smirk* >So (of course), Phil sez: > > Fine, I don't need to be on a network with an insensitive fool > like you anyway. Henceforth, AMD does not talk to NSC. > Farewell. > >"I'm taking my modem home..." ... come on guys. Does this need to be >a personal thing? I'm sorry to see this has balooned out onto the net. There was no offense meant to Phil or to anyone, and I'm very sorry to see that he took it the way he did. I have long considered Phil a friend, I'm sorry to see that the friendship doesn't seem to have survived the current situation. If Phil feels he has to cut the links, I'm apologize to the network for putting him in that position. >Geeze... this is how wars start. Only if both parties allow it. I never wanted anything to go public, and I'm sorry Phil felt he had to make a statement on the situation. Anything I say further, I'll say in private, since this really has nothing to do with the net. -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.
tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) (09/14/85)
In article <3658@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >Chuqui, I wrote to you and complained that I didn't appreciate such comments. >Your response was that it was "a harmless remark" and you would say that >to anyone. You also said some other nasty things about me which I won't >repeat here. You never said you were sorry you said it. Fine, I don't need >to be on a network with an insensitive fool like you anyway. Henceforth, >AMD does not talk to NSC. Farewell. I begin to wonder if you americans are adult people! How can you say things like "I don't talk to you anymore." and meaning this? Children under 10 use to say such things... I cannot understand that it can be so difficult to bear remarks like those of "Chuqui". I often hear such remarks but never have I felt offensed in such a way by them. -- --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy) UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre COSAC: crin/tombre POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France "Car le plus lourd fardeau, c'est d'exister sans vivre." (Victor Hugo)