honey (04/17/83)
i didn't see the original eunice announcement, because i don't read net.eunice. i do not appreciate being urged to read it in net.general. i suggest you unsubscribe to net.eunice if such notes trouble you, and refuse the newsgroup at decvax if you're really bothered. raising ancient issues like this in net.general (instead of net.news) is a far more egregious offense. would you have complained if the notice had appeared in net.wanted? peter honeyman
mark (04/21/83)
I'm really amazed at all the flames I'm reading proclaiming their horror at any "commercial use of 'the network'". Almost all of you are making commercial use of USENET right now. (After all, you're using USENET to help do your jobs, and unless you're at a University your job is ultimately aimed at some commercial endeavor!) I think some of you who are crying wolf ought to start by offering a definition of what you consider to be "commercial use", and of which network. (Usenet? UUCP?) Then you should say how you feel TWG has violated your definition, and why what they are proposing is harmful but your note, and ucbvax!4bsd-bugs, and net.bugs are not. Then maybe we'll have something rational and concrete to discuss. Mark Horton
mjs (04/22/83)
Short and sweet, the difference between the "commercial MR" system and something like net.bugs is that a single company gets a significant edge over the rest of the net at the net's (supporters') expense. Net.bugs goes to all (or at least most) sites, where each individual system administrator can choose whether or not to install a fix. Thus, everyone has the capability of profiting by the shared information. In a nutshell, any information that is shared with the net does not qualify as a "commercial" use (though this is subject to refinement by the rest of netland). How about it? Martin Shannon, Jr. Phone: (201) 582-3199 Internet: mjs@mhb5b.uucp UUCP: {allegra,rabbit,alice,mhb5b,mhb5c}!mjs