brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/20/84)
With all the noise being raised of late concerning problems with the net - moderated groups, overload, crazy users, newcomers, bad selectivity - I would like to remind people that many of these problems are technological and would be solved a new news system. Full credit to people like Matt Glickman and Mark Horton, but they designed this system in 1981 in their spare time, and don't have the time to support it now. That's the story with free software. The price is right but you pay for what you get. If people on the net are serious about the price they pay for reading news, they would commision a commercial, supported netnews product. A fee of $100 per site would easily handle this project for a while with proper cooperation. Or perhaps $10-$20 per user would be better. How many people wouldn't pay $20 to reduce the time wasted while reading news by even 10% If this sounds like the old Usenet, Inc. discussion again, I suppose it has some similarites; but if you don't think software is worth paying for then why are you a programmer? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ber@mouton.UUCP (10/22/84)
Will each news administrator please have each user send me $20. When I collect enough money I will write a new netnews system and everone will worship me. brian redman
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (10/23/84)
[I'm a poor lonesome superuser, far away from /] Oh no... *please*, no commercial news software. If that ever happens, it will probably be the end of the net. Don't forget that there are many different versions of unix, running on many different types of hardware, with many different terminals attached, communicating over many different links. If your plan is to be a success, you'll have to distribute binaries only, to stop all of those system administrators of hacking in their own nifty features, and so you would have to do all the maintanance *yourself*. You can guess what this means, having access to 20 different machines on a commercial basis...... Also, for a fee of $100,- I don't think that the company would be very fast in repairing bugs. At the moment, most bugs get fixed a few weeks after they are discovered. After this, it takes another year to install the new software on 90% of the machines, and the other 10% takes another 5 years, but still, the repaired software is available. Do you think a commercial firm would be willing to distribute bug-fixes and new software versions for, lets say, 20 different configurations every three months or so? Well, I wouldn't do it, at least not for $100 per site. I do agree that the current state of the net is messy due to all the different versions in use, and especially since there are lots of admins who don't update the software now and again, but I think that commercial software would only worsen the situation. Maybe we can think of some scheme where sites refuse to connect to other sites if their software is too old, or where a backbone site can force the installation of new sofware on the sites it is serving?
hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) (10/25/84)
> Oh no... *please*, no commercial news software. If that ever > happens, it will probably be the end of the net. There are two types of software: "free" and "paid-for". (Long term) Quality software rarely (effectively never) comes for free. The same is *not* true for "paid-for" software. There is, however, a difference between commercial software (private sector software produced for profit) and software which is "paid-for" by someone who who makes the software available to others. It is my belief that users' groups are in a perfect position to fund this sort of effort. I do not believe this type of software could be produced by the private sector. > Don't > forget that there are many different versions of unix, running > on many different types of hardware, with many different > terminals attached, communicating over many different links. Granted. No problems seen yet (more on this later). > If your plan is to be a success, you'll have to distribute > binaries only, to stop all of those system administrators of > hacking in their own nifty features, and so you would have > to do all the maintanance *yourself*. You can guess what this > means, having access to 20 different machines on a commercial > basis...... Given that the software is not produced by the private sector, sources can be distributed. Over the short term, *good* fixes can come from anywhere; it is easier to update the software in the field if the fixes are controlled from a single source. The only thing required over the long term is that the sources be fixed *and enhanced* fast enough. As for the number of machines and the flavors of Unix, that is not a problem either. Plus Five produces software which runs under V7, SysIII, SysV (and r2), 2 and 4BSD, and Xenix. The software is running on over 20 manufacturers "brands" of hardware (this includes several 68k vendors and a couple of Z8000 vendors). In the past, the hardest machines for me to find were Sun and Masscomp; customers on these machines usually waited 3 to 4 months for releases (I made tapes at shows, because we only distribute binaries.). Now I have access to a local Masscomp machine (there are no local Sun machines). Anyway, if sources are distributed, this is not a problem. > > ... > [The rest of the referenced article, in my opinion, is moot, given we agree that private-sector new software won't work.] It is my understanding that Usenix is funding Something which entails (by inference from some articles posted by the Hortons) 2.10.2 netnews, the uucp-mail project, and the uucp name registry. I have no idea the amounts of money are, or who gets what money for what service. From my nosing around I have heard that money has not been put aside for software development. It is also my understanding that the biggest reason 2.10.2 has been released as soon as it was is Rick had *nothing* to do at work for 2 weeks, and was able to devote that time to the software. He has amassed over 100kb of fixes since then (mostly of the form: The distributed software won't compile on Clonix on a HomeBrew 15, and here is the fix). I submit the reason a new and improved 2.10.2 incorporating these fixes is because Rick is not paid to work on netnews. He has a real job. As a responsible employee he does his official work *before* he works on netnews. If you want good software sooner than the kind-hearted souls who devote their free time to the production of same are able to produce, pay somebody to write it. THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WRITE THEM A CHECK. How many of you are members of Usenix or /usr/group? They are >users' groups<, whose function is to Do Good Things for their respective members. One of the services they provide is to hold meetings >for the good of their members<. At these meetings we get to meet each other, give papers, and discuss problems and find solutions to those problems. Members of these groups are *entitled* to request that services for the good of the members be performed. If the by-laws or articles of incorporation prohibit the changes, then request a change in the by-laws or articles of incorporation. If the membership in general dislikes the spending of funds for these projects, either "educate" the members as to why they are wrong, or form *another* users' group whose purpose includes the things the members want done. Why else would you pay your dues to be a member of the group? -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492
ber@mouton.UUCP (10/27/84)
no, no, no... not 20$, $20.
sylvain@lvbull.UUCP (Sylvain Langlois) (11/01/84)
(**Crunch Crunch**) Here it is, I'm sending you the 20$ in net.junk right now. Happy?? --- Sylvain Langlois (....mcvax!vmucnam!lvbull!sylvain) --- PS: For the next version, you should ask for gold!!