ordy (12/10/82)
I have been following with interest the recent series of (comments on)/(proposals for) Usenet. In many cases, there appears to be no good solution. Perhaps part of the problem is that we are trying to find solutions using a structure which really cannot support them. I therefore am going to suggest some things radically different from the way things currently are. NOTE - I am not even sure 'I' think this is a good idea - but, perhaps it will stimulate some exotic thinking. Recently expressed concerns have included: * news archive capability (i.e. be able to retrieve past items). * 'size' of the network, expressed as longest site to site paths. * digests formats * news software versions * censorship along some path * topic experts * other network gateways I also have my own concerns, such as what must be a great difference in network support costs from site to site. I am sure we have all heard rumors about the phone bill at 'decvax'! Perhaps a solution might be: 1) require a per site Usenet fee. This would be a per year cost, perhaps 1-3 thousand dollars. 2) use the money to create 'automated news stations', that is machines with the following characteristics: * about as powerful as a Vax 730 * 1000 or so Mbytes disk * automatic tape system (large storage) * bunches of dialups, with some sort of phone line cost breaks, like 800 service or whatever is out there. 3) I am not sure of how many makes sense for North America, which seems to be the domain most considered to be relevant. 1? 2? 3? 10? In any case, they would be located in logical places like perhaps near nodes like decvax, ucbvax, or some of the Bell Labs 'mondo' sites (ih, mh, ho). --------- Before looking at how we might use such resources, I don't think that sites should be forced to get usenet access this way. That is, the current interconnection mechanism would still be allowed. Hopefully, the services provided by the new system would make sense for 'serious' news/mail sites. Certainly, sites within a local region could use current methods. Here are some of my comments: These sites could store all news, and make it available through some access mechanism. A complete history would exist. In addition, we could have collections on given topics. Sites would be '1' node away from all others. Reliability should go up. Censorship would only be local, as it should be. If organized as a data base system, requests could be made which might stop things like 'light bulb joke mania'. Automated catalogs could be created. User names (addresses) would be simpler, and implementation of user inquiry services could be done. Gateways could be established to other networks that had clearly defined policies, and interconnection mechanisms. Perhaps these sites could also serve as distribution points for other types of data - like public domain software. --------- I could go on, and notice that I didn't even mention the negative points, there are many. If there are comments mailed to me, I will collect and summerize. Please remember that I really am talking 'blue sky', and flaming to me is like flaming to somebody who only occasionally logs in - that is my 'other' side is speaking out now. Greg Ordy decvax!cwruecmp!ordy A final question --- if not today, then perhaps 2 years?, 4 years?