mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (12/12/84)
I won't stoop to David DiGiacomo's level and question his integrity or
professionalism. I won't argue the technical merits of the case (which
I judge to be on Lauren's side).
I *WILL*, however, point out that Lauren is one of the most important
contibutors to USENET, both in terms of intelligent commentary and
active efforts to make the net work better. Everything I've seen leads
me to believe that "stargate" is a sincere effort to address some of
the most pressing problems USENET faces. DiGiacomo's comments were
cheap shots taken at a valuable experiment (and the lead
experimenter).
--
Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY
UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl
CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPAavolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (12/12/84)
> I won't stoop to David DiGiacomo's level and question his integrity or > professionalism.... > > I *WILL*, however, point out that Lauren is one of the most important > contibutors to USENET, both in terms of intelligent commentary and > active efforts to make the net work better.... Agreed! Agreed! "This is totally bogus!" *indeed*! (quote from 271@bradvax.UUCP ... *totally* bogus? :-)) I suspect, Lauren, most people appreciate the effort and more will later. And, man-alive, I hope he does make a few bucks off of it! -- Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support 301/731-4100 x4227 UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismo.ARPA
david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (12/12/84)
In article <1422@ritcv.UUCP> mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) writes: > DiGiacomo's comments were >cheap shots taken at a valuable experiment (and the lead >experimenter). You're right -- I'm a cheap person and I think that broadcast Usenet decoders should also be cheap. For me the $500-650 price quoted is a warning that something is screwed up. >I won't stoop to David DiGiacomo's level and question his integrity or >professionalism. Geesh! I didn't accuse Lauren of anything; I was just asking a question. >I won't argue the technical merits of the case (which I judge to be on >Lauren's side). Let's cut out the mudslinging and argue the technical merits of the case! -- David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)
jonab@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Biggar) (12/13/84)
In article <273@bragvax.UUCP> david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) writes: >You're right -- I'm a cheap person and I think that broadcast Usenet >decoders should also be cheap. For me the $500-650 price quoted is a >warning that something is screwed up. > Don't quibble over the price of the decoder box until you know what it does. I don't know all of the features, but I know it isn't just a simple cable decoder box that you can get for $49.95. A little back of the envelope calculation reveals that the date is going to be coming into the box at at least 600 characters per second assuming only 10 characters per video frame. It is possible that the rate could be 6000 or 60000, I don't know how many characters per video frame. How many of you have machines that can handle news coming in at 6000 baud all day? 60,000 baud? 600,000 baud? This box HAS to contain a non-trivial amount of buffering memory and hardware. If you thing that duplicate article rejection in rnews is slow now, what happens when your machine receives the save article 3 times per hour, 24 hours per day? Your machine will be running rnews all day, and you will get NO work done. This box needs to have a cache of recently received message-ids so that the machine need not handle duplicates. This box is going to need about 64k of memory or more, a video decoder, some fast pattern matching hardware, and an RS-232 port. Probably needs to containt its own 68000 class cpu and a good real-time software package. You just don't get that for $49.95. $500 is probably too cheap, but I would be willing to pay that once, plus $10-20 per month to replace $2000/month phone bills. So give Lauren a break. If you can't trust USENIX to protect our interests, who can you trust. Besides, Lauren does deserve to be payed for the work. You can't expect him to donate 100's of hours of time for free? Jon Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3}!sdcrdcf!jonab
dave@timeinc.UUCP (David Mutterer) (12/14/84)
> I won't stoop to David DiGiacomo's level and question his integrity or > professionalism. I won't argue the technical merits of the case (which > I judge to be on Lauren's side). > > I *WILL*, however, point out that Lauren is one of the most important > contibutors to USENET, both in terms of intelligent commentary and > active efforts to make the net work better. Everything I've seen leads > me to believe that "stargate" is a sincere effort to address some of > the most pressing problems USENET faces. DiGiacomo's comments were > cheap shots taken at a valuable experiment (and the lead > experimenter). > -- Why are they cheap shots..?? because they don't conform to your opinion?? There are some things that Lauren is doing that could be questioned as far as ethics of the net are concerned... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they should express it on the net to bring up views that other people might not have seen before.. -- David Mutterer [vax135|ihnp4]!timeinc!dave "Any opinions expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Time Incorporated."