tp@mccall.uucp (11/15/89)
My name is Terry Poot, and I am a member of the VMSnet working group of the
VAX SIG of DECUS, the Digital Equipment Computer User's Society. The aim of
the working group is to promote electronic communications among users of
VAX/VMS systems, and between those users and the rest of the world.
To that end, the VMSnet working group has created the hierarchy of
newsgroups vmsnet.*. The complete set of these is listed below. This
hierarchy is for topics of interest to VAX/VMS sites. This hierarchy is
just being created, and has no traffic yet. However, I'm told that the
last version check message that went out across the net revealed over 200
VMS systems on Usenet, and many Usenet sites contain VMS machines that are
not on the net, so there should be a great deal of interest.
uunet (uunet.uu.net) currently carries these groups. We are working on
getting other major sites to carry them. I (tp@mccall.uucp) am trying to
arrange the distribution of these groups. Contact me if you can't find
them. Also, PLEASE let me know if you decide to carry them, so I can help
others find them. Note that the 2 mailing list gateways are not yet
operational, but we're working on it.
If you are sysadmin of a major site, please consider carrying these groups,
and let me know if you will.
vmsnet.announce general announcements of interest to all VMSnet readers
vmsnet.announce.newusers orientation info for new users
vmsnet.mail discussions of e-mail on VMS systems, OTHER than VMSnet
vmsnet.mail.pmdf gatewayed to info-pmdf mailing list (not yet)
vmsnet.misc discussions of VMSnet itself,
gatewayed to vmsnet mailing list (not yet)
vmsnet.sources source code postings for VMS systems
(including VMSnet and ANU News-related software)
vmsnet.sources.d discussions and requests for same
vmsnet.sources.games recreational software (optional)
The VMSnet working group has produced DECUS uucp, which allows uucp
connection to UNIX or VMS systems. It is integrated with ANU News, which
allows VMS systems to join Usenet and/or VMSnet.
--
Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-3683
The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.eduwayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (11/16/89)
In article <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> tp@mccall.uucp writes: > > [... Terry wants people to carry the following groups:] > > vmsnet.announce general announcements of interest to all VMSnet readers > vmsnet.announce.newusers orientation info for new users > vmsnet.mail discussions of e-mail on VMS systems, OTHER than VMSnet > vmsnet.mail.pmdf gatewayed to info-pmdf mailing list (not yet) > vmsnet.misc discussions of VMSnet itself, > gatewayed to vmsnet mailing list (not yet) > vmsnet.sources source code postings for VMS systems > (including VMSnet and ANU News-related software) > vmsnet.sources.d discussions and requests for same > vmsnet.sources.games recreational software (optional) hmmm... something about this struck me wrong, and i wasnt too sure what it was... basically, i couldnt see why you would want to create a whole new hierarchy for these groups... why not create/use comp.sources.vms for vmsnet.sources comp.sources.games.vms for vmsnet.sources.games comp.mail.vms for vmsnet.mail comp.mail.pmdf for vmsnet.mail.pmdf comp.sources.d for vmsnet.sources.d. (comp.source.d isnt that busy a news group...) after thinking about it more, what really struck me as wrong is that if every operating system/computer started its own hierarchy, this would lead to very fragmented net. each of those separate nets would be much smaller... if ultrix, msdos, sun etc all broke off separate nets, what would this do the usenet as a whole? i can see the point that _most_ sites would probably not need to carry these vms groups, but _most_ sites probably would anyway. if the goal is to save bandwidth used by these groups, then it would probably be better to continue to look at ways to automatically do this for all groups. the same argument can be used that _most_ sites would not need to carry comp.foo either. i can also see that just creating a new hierarchy would be a _whole_ lot easier than trying to run a half a dozen newsgroup votes. 1/2 :-> anyway, it's not that i am opposed to this new hierarchy, or that i think that people shouldnt carry it, it's just that this seems to run counter to the way usenet has been run in the past. most of the other non-mainstream hierarchies are there because the _rules_ for carrying them are different or because they are regional groups. just some thoughts -wayne
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/17/89)
In article <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> tp@mccall.uucp writes: >...newsgroups vmsnet.*. The complete set of these is listed below. This >hierarchy is for topics of interest to VAX/VMS sites. This hierarchy is >just being created, and has no traffic yet... >If you are sysadmin of a major site, please consider carrying these groups, >and let me know if you will. We will unhesitatingly carry them if and when they become subgroups of comp.os.vms. We will be very reluctant to carry them if you insist on having your own top-level name; there are too many top-level names already, and I utterly fail to see why you need one of your own. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (11/17/89)
In article <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> tp@mccall.uucp writes: >>...newsgroups vmsnet.*.... This hierarchy is for topics of interest to >>VAX/VMS sites. > >We will unhesitatingly carry them if and when they become subgroups of >comp.os.vms. We will be very reluctant to carry them if you insist on >having your own top-level name; there are too many top-level names already, >and I utterly fail to see why you need one of your own. No! This is a different distribution -- therefore it definitely should have its own top-level name. The whole inet thing -- running a completely separate distribution within the traditional namespace -- has adaquately demonstrated that this is the wrong way to go. It's easy to handwave and blame it on poor software, or poor adminsitration; but the fact remains that running different distributions within the same namespace just doesn't work very well. Think of it as administrative friendliness. What next? Fold biz.all and clari.all into the comp, sci, etc. hierarchy? vmsnet.* is the right way to go. <csg>
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/17/89)
[Henry doesn't like new top-level groups] I have a suggestion: let's make this a test-case for my delegation idea. Assign authority for comp.os.vms.* to the vmsnet folks. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/18/89)
From: wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) >why not create/use >comp.sources.vms for vmsnet.sources >comp.sources.games.vms for vmsnet.sources.games >comp.mail.vms for vmsnet.mail >comp.mail.pmdf for vmsnet.mail.pmdf >comp.sources.d for vmsnet.sources.d. (comp.source.d ... >anyway, it's not that i am opposed to this new hierarchy, or that i >think that people shouldnt carry it, it's just that this seems to run >counter to the way usenet has been run in the past. most of the other >non-mainstream hierarchies are there because the _rules_ for carrying >them are different or because they are regional groups. Why not be opposed to the new hierarchy? You make a very valid point. My gut feeling is that this is another one of those "news group as status symbol" proposals. Actually, in this case, it's an entire news hierarchy, big status symbol. Obviously no one can just stop them but I don't really see the rationale for encouraging this project. Should we start a unix.* hierarchy? A msdos.*? os2.*? Ad nauseum? What exactly does having an entire hierarchy add to this project (other than perhaps some feeling of control at the cost of cooperation)? Where are people supposed to post in re the groups that already exist? Cross-post everything? I think this is grandstanding and just confuses things. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
tp@mccall.uucp (11/18/89)
In article <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > We will unhesitatingly carry them if and when they become subgroups of > comp.os.vms. We will be very reluctant to carry them if you insist on > having your own top-level name; there are too many top-level names already, > and I utterly fail to see why you need one of your own. In article <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > No! This is a different distribution -- therefore it definitely should have > its own top-level name. ... > > vmsnet.* is the right way to go. These are obviously the 2 sides to the issue. There are several reasons we decided to go this way. First, we thought there might be quite a bit of resistance to a lot of VMS traffic on usenet, being a net mostly of unix systems. Second, a lot of VMS sites don't want the usenet traffic, or don't think they do, or don't want all of it, and would prefer to have a separate set of groups. Of course there are a half dozen or so usenet groups that they will need to pick up, but we distribute a list of those with the software. An important point here is that we aren't adding a new top level to usenet, we are creating a new net named VMSnet. That's what a separate hierarchy is for. A good example is bionet, a special purpose net for a special audience. It isn't part of usenet, although many usenet sites are also bionet sites. Many usenet sites are now vmsnet sites, but none have to be. VMSnet isn't usenet. If you want to create a group in the vmsnet hierarchy, don't bother announcing in news.groups, and don't bother taking a vote. We haven't even thought of those issues yet, but the place to talk about it would be vmsnet.misc. I announced the hierarchy on usenet, because I think there are a fair number of VMS users out there (I was right, I've gotten many responses, from 3 continents). Sites agree to carry traffic for various reasons. Large universities or companies may have VMS vaxes, so they would carry the groups as a service to their users. Many sites will carry them as a service to those downstream. Many NNTP sites will carry the groups just as a service to the net and the readers of those groups. (Thanks, we appreciate it!) Most of the sites that have agreed to carry vmsnet have also agreed to carry pubnet, bionet, u3b.*, unix-pc.*, gnu.*, etc., or at least some of those. I doubt that the people at those sites actually read those groups in all cases. They are doing a favor for a special audience on the net. vmsnet is in this way no different. We do think, just based on the number of VMS machines out there, that vmsnet will become large in its own right. If the traffic gets high, and usenet sites decide to stop carrying it, that's fine too. (Almost by definition, if vmsnet is that active, it will have large sites capable of being a de facto backbone.) I've already had one site tell me quite politely that he had no VMS users and no extra space, so he wouldn't carry the groups. That is perfectly fine too. I expected more of these. I'm quite frankly surprised at the number of major sites that have agreed to carry the groups. I was expecting fewer. At the risk of sounding mushy, having sent and received a combined total of over 100 mail messages in the last few days getting this hierarchy arranged, I now know how a totally anarchistic net can work: the people running the major sites are very friendly and generous people who like to help others. > A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu I sure hope that the tone of this didn't come out harsh, it is in no way meant as a flame. -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-3683 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
tp@mccall.uucp (11/18/89)
In article <WAYNE.89Nov16092203@dsndata.uucp>, wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes: > why not create/use [List of substitutions deleted] > after thinking about it more, what really struck me as wrong is that > if every operating system/computer started its own hierarchy, this > would lead to very fragmented net. How bad is that? I carry a bunch of high volume mac groups that I don't need, just because it is easier. There are a few soc groups I'd like. My feed doesn't have the bandwidth to send me soc.* with all else he sends me. If I dropped the mac groups, could I pick up the others? How often do I want to balance such issues and how closely do I expect my feed to monitor his bandwidth? On the other hand !mac.all,!msdos.all,!amiga.all would work real well at this site (but not at others, and that is the point). We went from 1 hierarchy, to 2, to 7 plus alternates. What's the right number? I think an alternate hierarchy is the right way to go when you have a distinctly different audience. > i can see the point that _most_ sites would probably not need to carry > these vms groups, but _most_ sites probably would anyway. Looks that way, but it surprised me. I expected far fewer volunteers. I've worked on vms and unix, and the two camps don't seem to think much of each other. > if the goal > is to save bandwidth used by these groups, then it would probably be > better to continue to look at ways to automatically do this for all > groups. We want a VMS discussion forum. You want us to solve all usenet's problems first!!! :-) :-) :-) > i can also see that just creating a new hierarchy would be a _whole_ > lot easier than trying to run a half a dozen newsgroup votes. 1/2 :-> Not a small consideration, given the way most people on the net feel about VMS! 1/2 :-) Also, there are rules for creating groups and good reasons for the rules, but they would make it impossible for us to get the groups created, because there are few VMS user on the net right now, because the software is relatively new. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. 50% of the people we polled at a DECUS symposium like the idea of a network of VMS systems connected by uucp, but emphatically did not want on usenet. If you can't create vms groups without users, but the user's say the net doesn't serve their purposes because it has no vms groups, what have you got? > anyway, it's not that i am opposed to this new hierarchy, or that i > think that people shouldnt carry it, it's just that this seems to run > counter to the way usenet has been run in the past. most of the other > non-mainstream hierarchies are there because the _rules_ for carrying > them are different or because they are regional groups. Before there were any alternate hierarchies, people complained about the rules. They were told that if they didn't like it, they should create their own hierarchy and arrange their own distribution. That's what we've done. You may say that we used usenet's distributions. True. But everyone that is carrying the groups volunteered. They've in effect "joined vmsnet". -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-3683 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
tp@mccall.uucp (11/18/89)
In article <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp>, tp@mccall.uucp writes: > uunet (uunet.uu.net) currently carries these groups. We are working on > getting other major sites to carry them. Here's a bit of an update on some of the major sites that have agreed to carry the vmsnet.* groups. Not all of the sys files have been changed to get the groups flowing, but everyone on this list knows where to get the groups and has agreed to carry them. (If you're on the list and I'm wrong, let me know!) ames.arc.nasa.gov brutus.cs.uiuc.edu bu.edu caesar.cs.montana.edu cc.rochester.edu cs.cornell.edu cs.utexas.edu decwrl.dec.com elroy.jpl.nasa.gov rutgers.edu texbell uunet.uu.net uwm.edu wuarchive.wustl.edu Still, during this formative period of vmsnet, if you decide to carry the groups, please let me know so I can help sites get in touch with each other. Also if you could send me a list of your usenet neighbors, or your sys file, that would help too. Thanks -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-3683 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/18/89)
In article <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: | No! This is a different distribution -- therefore it definitely should have | its own top-level name. The whole inet thing -- running a completely separate | distribution within the traditional namespace -- has adaquately demonstrated | that this is the wrong way to go. I'm not sure what you're saying here, but usenet has a separate field for distribution, separate from the name of the group. If UNIX (run by most of the sites on the net) and MS-DOS (important either personally or financially at most sites on the net) don't get their own distribution, why should vms? There are lots of distributions now, such as alt, which are organizational rather than geographic. Since you're a reasonable person I assume your desire for your own namespace comes from a bad source of technical information rather than an assumption that vms is more important than the other operating systems on the net. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/18/89)
In article <WAYNE.89Nov16092203@dsndata.uucp> wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes: >if every operating system/computer started its own hierarchy, this >would lead to very fragmented net. each of those separate nets would >be much smaller... if ultrix, msdos, sun etc all broke off separate >nets, what would this do the usenet as a whole? What is so bad about this? The net is too big to manage as it is. Why distribute stuff where it's not wanted? Why not have smaller subnets? I'm all for it. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tp@mccall.uucp (11/19/89)
In article <1989Nov17.174318.21963@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > From: wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) >>why not create/use >>comp.sources.vms for vmsnet.sources >>comp.sources.games.vms for vmsnet.sources.games >>comp.mail.vms for vmsnet.mail >>comp.mail.pmdf for vmsnet.mail.pmdf >>comp.sources.d for vmsnet.sources.d. (comp.source.d > > My gut feeling is that this is another one of those "news group as > status symbol" proposals. Actually, in this case, it's an entire news > hierarchy, big status symbol. I think I'd get flamed a lot worse for proposing a new slate of groups (as above). Note that only one of those groups exists (comp.sources.d). > What exactly does having an > entire hierarchy add to this project (other than perhaps some feeling > of control at the cost of cooperation)? Where are people supposed to > post in re the groups that already exist? Cross-post everything? There's nothing wrong with cross posting. However, where does the problem come in. There is only one vms group on the net right now (comp.os.vms). Having our own hierarchy gets us out of your way, you (generic, not you specifically) out of our way, and will hopefully allow peaceful coexistance. > I think this is grandstanding and just confuses things. Sorry you feel that way. I think you are wrong, but then I would, wouldn't I? -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-3683 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/19/89)
In article <1666.25659fe1@mccall.uucp> tp@mccall.uucp writes: >There's nothing wrong with cross posting. However, where does the problem >come in. There is only one vms group on the net right now (comp.os.vms). Yes well I don't suppose that might be a MEANINGFUL fact??? :-) I mean it's not as though VMS traffic is exactly flooding the existing net. Shouldn't proven interest and traffic precede a new hierarchy? Actually were I a WCS suzerain I would be willing to carry "vmsnet" for what it was worth, but would feel sure that the alien hierarchy will doom the project. Seceding first is suicide. -- 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies. | Tom Neff 1975-1989: nothing. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/20/89)
From: tp@mccall.uucp >I think I'd get flamed a lot worse for proposing a new slate of groups (as >above). Note that only one of those groups exists (comp.sources.d). I think your project would be a lot more successful if it was done with a sense of cooperation rather than as a mandate. If the groups need to exist they would be created, if they don't I don't see how doing an end-run around the whole system is likely to help. >There's nothing wrong with cross posting. However, where does the problem >come in. There is only one vms group on the net right now (comp.os.vms). And comp.os.vms is a very big, busy group, that's enough to consider the point. And there are dozens other groups with strong relevance, how about comp.periphs, comp.protocols.tcpip, comp.org.decus, comp.protocols.iso.*, comp.newprod, comp.laser-printers, com.dcom.modems, comp.lang.fortran, comp.lang.ada, comp.sources.misc, comp.windows.x, comp.sources.x, etc. etc. etc. >Having our own hierarchy gets us out of your way, you (generic, not you >specifically) out of our way, and will hopefully allow peaceful >coexistance. Oh, thank you. You know, this whole "we're doing you a favor" position is meant to be nothing but feigned obsequiousness. I'm not fooled, so don't bother. Getting back to real issues, the fallacy y'all are laboring under (as good as your motives might ultimately be) is that there hasn't been participation from the VMS community on a lot of groups in the USENET (including forming groups), THEREFORE, you'll create a whole namespace where the letters VMS appear a lot and then all this great stuff, free software, bug-fixes, new products etc will just start flowing like an oil gusher. Look! We created vmsnet.sources.games! Now we'll have lots of games! (horsefeathers, this note is going to comp.os.vms/info-vax, what games are you folks sitting on which you haven't posted because you didn't have a vmsnet.sources.games group? I welcome public responses.) I think it's a fallacy, no one ever discouraged the VMS community from being involved in the USENET beyond the fact that few sites had appropriate software to be news sites (certainly that solution was always in their hands! That software exists on Unix, MS/DOS etc because someone sat down and wrote it, it didn't come from heaven.) Many groups existed which have accepted VMS software, protocol questions etc etc when submitted, it just rarely shows up, and if that grew in volume the groups would have been quickly subdivided. If the USENET is so UNIX-biased (as some seem to be saying) then how do you explain that the Macintosh, MS/DOS and Amiga groups are among the ten highest volume groups on this network? I think the whole idea is based on flawed reasoning even if I believed the offered reasons (and I don't, I still think it's just a lot of grandstanding and some alligator tears.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (11/20/89)
In article <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp> (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> tp@mccall.uucp writes: >>...newsgroups vmsnet.*. > >We will unhesitatingly carry them if and when they become subgroups of >comp.os.vms. We will be very reluctant to carry them if you insist on >having your own top-level name; there are too many top-level names already, >and I utterly fail to see why you need one of your own. Henry, please elaborate on your contention that there are "too many top-level names already". To me it seems that the creation of a new top-level name is an ideal way to handle the potential traffic for lots of new sites that may come on the heels of this new set of software. Not only do they avoid the fol-de-rol of a newgroup election, but it is easier to tailor the feeds or sys files with a new top-level. <Followups to news.groups> -- Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (11/20/89)
I for one support the vmsnet heirarchy. For purely pragmatic reasons -- we don't need it, we don't want it, and our neighbors could care less. Were it up to me, I'd move most of the IBM-PC and MAC stuff into separate heirarchies as well (tho we'd probably take those). Separate heirarchies are a good way of cutting the fire-hose of USENET data flow down into something our disk space can manage. Managing them is not an issue -- I spend zero time worrying about gnu.*, unix-pc.*, alt.*, and the other 'alternative' distributions. What's preferable -- alt.rhode-island going to the full alt distribution, or mi.* (michigan) staying comfortably within it's bounds? Let heirarchies be a way of doing top-level control just as they are now. -- Steve Simmons scs@iti.org Industrial Technology Institute You're not a big name on Usenet until someone puts you in their .sig file.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/21/89)
In article <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >...Think of it as administrative friendliness. I think of it as administrative hostility, actually. The last thing I want is a dozen more pointless top-level groups cluttering up my sys file. >What next? Fold biz.all and clari.all into the comp, sci, etc. hierarchy? They've got good reasons for being separate. vmsnet doesn't. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/21/89)
In article <7030@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I have a suggestion: let's make this a test-case for my delegation idea. >Assign authority for comp.os.vms.* to the vmsnet folks. Sounds good to me. Maybe if we get the administrative trivia out of the way, the real motives of the "vmsnet.*" group will emerge. (Surely you don't expect that they will actually go along with such a reasonable idea...) Okay, so I got out on the wrong side of bed this morning. Nevertheless, I expect this idea will be ignored -- it doesn't have the ego appeal of "our OWN top-level group". -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (11/21/89)
In article <1989Nov17.174318.21963@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > > From: wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) > >why not create/use > >comp.sources.vms for vmsnet.sources [ ..... ] > > ..... it's just that this seems to run > >counter to the way usenet has been run in the past. > Why not be opposed to the new hierarchy? You make a very valid point. > My gut feeling is that this is another one of those "news group as > status symbol" proposals. Actually, in this case, it's an entire news > hierarchy, big status symbol. My gut feeling is that somebody who already has the equivalent of most of this in place (in the comp groups) wants the 90% (guesstimate) of us who don't run VMS to support the 10% who do with a significant part of our resources. > Obviously no one can just stop them ..... Ever hear of the "rmgroup" command? I think that'll stop them from my site--considering that we have no DEC hardware in my division, I can't see supporting something that duplicates part of what I'm getting already. Further, this is USENET, not VMS-SUPPORTED-BY-REAL-OS-NET. We have guidlines about forming new newsgroups. We're all supposed to follow these guidelines, partly to operate in concensus--i.e., operate in a manner that is generally agreed upon by the net users and admins. This hierarchy was not voted upon by the net, much less any of the sub-groups in it. It won't be coming into this site for two real simple reasons: 1) It is not an "official" newsgroup, within one of the existing hierarchies, approved by the net as a whole. 2) I'm NOT going to edit it into my sys file. Stopped? Gee, whiz, I don't see anything coming in here to stop... A rogue newgroup message could come in, under one of the existing top-level groups, and I probably wouldn't care. A whole new hierarchy, however, requires my intervention before it'll be formed here, and that's not going to happen. If the initiators of this vmsnet thing are confident that it'd be voted in favor of, why wasn't it discussed and voted in properly? > I think this is grandstanding and just confuses things. Agreed. Very much so. What was that site name, again--I need to write a little script about it....something with an "rm" in it... > -Barry Shein > Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com > 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
tp@mccall.uucp (11/21/89)
In article <409@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: > My gut feeling is that somebody who already has the equivalent of > most of this in place (in the comp groups) wants the 90% (guesstimate) > of us who don't run VMS to support the 10% who do with a significant > part of our resources. Unless you choose to join VMSnet, you won't be supporting it. You won't even see it. > Ever hear of the "rmgroup" command? I think that'll stop them from > my site--considering that we have no DEC hardware in my division, > I can't see supporting something that duplicates part of what I'm > getting already. Are you going to rmgroup bionet and pubnet while you are at it? If you don't want to be on VMSnet, don't join, but why screw things up for people that do want to join? > Further, this is USENET, not VMS-SUPPORTED-BY-REAL-OS-NET. We have > guidlines about forming new newsgroups. We're all supposed to follow > these guidelines, partly to operate in concensus--i.e., operate in > a manner that is generally agreed upon by the net users and admins. That is true on usenet. It will be true on VMSnet, but the rules will probably be a bit different. However, there are no rules for creating new networks. If we had created usenet newsgroups, we would have followed the rules. > This hierarchy was not voted upon by the net, much less any of the > sub-groups in it. It won't be coming into this site for two real > simple reasons: > > 1) It is not an "official" newsgroup, within one of the > existing hierarchies, approved by the net as a whole. No, none of the VMSnet groups is a usenet group, official or otherwise. > 2) I'm NOT going to edit it into my sys file. Bingo! If you don't edit your sys file and get a feed for the groups to do the same, you are NOT on VMSnet. That's all it takes, just don't do anything and you will not support VMSnet, belong to VMSnet, and excepting screwups by your feed sites, you will not SEE VMSnet. > Stopped? Gee, whiz, I don't see anything coming in here to stop... > A rogue newgroup message could come in, under one of the existing > top-level groups, and I probably wouldn't care. All the control messages for VMSnet will be posted to VMSnet, not to usenet. If you don't join, you won't see them. I could understand getting flamed if I posted them to usenet, as that would be a violation of the rules. But since you aren't going to join VMSnet, why do you care what happens there? -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (11/21/89)
>>>>> On 21 Nov 89 02:34:51 GMT, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) said:
[on vmsnet.all]
Gary> My gut feeling is that somebody who already has the equivalent of
Gary> most of this in place (in the comp groups) wants the 90% (guesstimate)
Gary> of us who don't run VMS to support the 10% who do with a significant
Gary> part of our resources.
Nope; sounds like somebody who figures that this will keep people who don't
care about VMS from having to support them at all! Look at it this way:
the whole hierarchy system was designed to make it easier to pick-and-choose
the groups your site feeds without having to get down-and-dirty with each
group, right? You and your users don't give an airborne copulation about
VMS, right? *So don't take vmsnet.all.* Simple. You don't even have to
make any effort.
Gary> Ever hear of the "rmgroup" command? I think that'll stop them from
Gary> my site--considering that we have no DEC hardware in my division,
Gary> I can't see supporting something that duplicates part of what I'm
Gary> getting already.
Why rmgroup it? *Just don't join vmsnet!* If you don't like commercial
messages, you simply ignore biz.all, and life is grand. If you don't like
VMS (and I, personally, think it's horrible and icky &c) then ignore
vmsnet.all.
Gary> Further, this is USENET, not VMS-SUPPORTED-BY-REAL-OS-NET. We have
Gary> guidlines about forming new newsgroups. We're all supposed to follow
Gary> these guidelines, partly to operate in concensus--i.e., operate in
Gary> a manner that is generally agreed upon by the net users and admins.
*This* is usenet. *That* is the altnet. *Over there* is vmsnet.
Gary> This hierarchy was not voted upon by the net, much less any of the
Gary> sub-groups in it. It won't be coming into this site for two real
Gary> simple reasons:
Gary> 1) It is not an "official" newsgroup, within one of the
Gary> existing hierarchies, approved by the net as a whole.
Gary> 2) I'm NOT going to edit it into my sys file.
Yup. See what I mean? You've just proved my point--*this is why they did
it as a separate hierarchy.*
Sometimes I wonder about people who seem to be arguing my side for me.
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet>
"Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/22/89)
In article <409@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: > My gut feeling is that somebody who already has the equivalent of > most of this in place (in the comp groups) wants the 90% (guesstimate) > of us who don't run VMS to support the 10% who do with a significant > part of our resources. Oh, balderdash. If they wanted to do that they would create the VMSNET DIGEST and post it to comp.os.vms. They are explicitly requiring people who want the group to find a feed and subscribe to it. Just so long as they don't get pissed off and throw a fit if people start talking about UNIX in it, the way Richard Stallman does if you mention the a-word in gnu.*. Or act surprised when someone starts complaining when it leaks into their site. > Further, this is USENET, not VMS-SUPPORTED-BY-REAL-OS-NET. No, it's VMSNET. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "I agree 0bNNNNN would have been nice, however, and I sure wish X3J11 had taken time off from rabbinical hairsplitting to add it." -- Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0>
romain@pyramid.pyramid.com (Romain Kang) (11/22/89)
In article <1989Nov20.162426.6252@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | In article <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: | >...Think of it as administrative friendliness. | | I think of it as administrative hostility, actually. The last thing I want | is a dozen more pointless top-level groups cluttering up my sys file. You're seeing opposite sides of the same coin. Those of us who don't want the new groups will have an easier time if vmsnet.* groups get their own hierarchy, and vice versa for the other case. The reason I see the inet distribution as a fiasco is there's no easy way to ensure the messages in the inet groups go out with the correct distribution. If there is, then why do well-run inet sites like rutgers still dump over 500K of inet each week onto their non-inet neighbors? (Through no administrative fault, I might add.) Certainly, it should not be difficult to make news software at the posting sites check headers and attach a Distribution: when the posters neglect to do so, but then how do you handle cross-posting between two groups with different implicit distributions? As far as I know, no one has addressed this issue yet. -- ''!!x89 dimaryP a fo edisni deppart m'I !pleH`` ``oNhwre eenraa sab dsab iegnt arppdei sndi efoa P /CTAr nuingnM -SOD!S!!''
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/22/89)
In article <7030@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: Peter> I have a suggestion: let's make this a test-case for my Peter> delegation idea. Assign authority for comp.os.vms.* to the Peter> vmsnet folks. In <1989Nov20.162705.6355@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: Henry> Sounds good to me. Maybe if we get the administrative trivia Henry> out of the way, the real motives of the "vmsnet.*" group will Henry> emerge. (Surely you don't expect that they will actually go Henry> along with such a reasonable idea...) It sounds good to me too, but those admins who think the USENET which is best is one that they never have to touch will surely complain about having to add !comp.os.vms.all to outgoing feeds who didn't want the data at all. I really think it is worth the trouble though. Why must admins who do their jobs give way continually to those who choose to ignore actually administering their system? We get other "major" alternate hierarchies including u3b, unix-pc, and now vmsnet. Why can't they be merged into the regular USENET namespace? [Answer: because of the admins who just don't understand how it all works. "Uh, why did johann@bigvax.site.edu send a newgroup for comp.os.vms.networks without a vote??" No, I don't think it is a good answer. It is one I expect to hear though.] [Why is this in comp.mail.uucp? Heaven help he who breaks the message chain, though. (cf news.software.b)] Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/23/89)
You can't win, can you? People want to create groups within comp (& etc.) and they have to go through a time consuming and often flame-ridden process. Create your own hierarchy, however, and you get flamed just as much. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mark@cblpf.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (11/23/89)
In article <49454@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <WAYNE.89Nov16092203@dsndata.uucp> wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes: >>if every operating system/computer started its own hierarchy, this >>would lead to very fragmented net. each of those separate nets would >>be much smaller... if ultrix, msdos, sun etc all broke off separate >>nets, what would this do the usenet as a whole? > >What is so bad about this? The net is too big to manage as it is. Why >distribute stuff where it's not wanted? Why not have smaller subnets? >I'm all for it. Brad is absolutely right. Netnews traffic has reached 8 MB/day, and it's doubling every year. It was not long ago that most ordinary sites kept 2 weeks of traffic on the disk. Now, even though our charter is to provide Netnews service, we can only fit about 10 days worth on a disk and still have enough breathing room for fits and bursts. (We're investigating creative solutions to this.) There are two reasons why traffic is growing so rapidly. One is that the number of people on the net is growing rapidly. The other is that new newgroups are being created at an alarming rate. Reading news.announce.newgroups it's clear that nearly every country in the world is taking a vote on a soc.culture.* group, and there are zillions of other groups being voted on. Without exception, there are only a handfull of "no" votes, and it's trivial to get a 100 vote "yes" margin. I proposed that rule years ago when it made sense, but it's a joke now. If someone wanted to create rec.humor.mud-wrestling, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard. Greg Woods has proposed requireing a 2/3 majority to create new newsgroups. This is clearly a step in the right direction, and I've voted "yes" on it. However, it doesn't go nearly far enough. I think it should be a lot harder to create a mainstream Usenet group. Perhaps it should be shown that enough people would *read* it to justify deleting some less-read group from the bottom of the list. VMSNET is not without precedent. There has been a unix-pc.* net for years now. It's not bothering anybody. Neither will VMSNET. Furthermore, objecting to the creation of VMSNET is blatant censorship: you're telling somebody else what they can do with their own machines! It's akin to forbidding a small group from publishing their own magazine or newsletter. By the very nature of the alternate heirarchy, you won't carry it unless you ask for it. Alternate heirarchies are an important way of keeping the Usenet .newsrc files down to a finite length. Right now a typical .newsrc file is about 16K bytes. For our 7000 users, the .newsrc and .oldnewsrc files add up to over 200 megabytes of disk space, all of which needs to be backed up. NNTP reads the active file over the net before rrn can start up - this would take 5 seconds on an idle 56K trunk. When the trunks get loaded at lunchtime, we sometimes get reports of taking a minute or more to start up rrn! I think it's unlikely our users will want VMSNET (this being AT&T, we run UNIX on our mainframes!) so this simplifies things for us. I strongly support the use of alternate heirarchies such as VMSNET, and I fail to see how anyone can oppose them in good faith. Mark Horton Usenet Old-Timer
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/23/89)
First we get that extended unilateral flame-war from Greg@Lawnet, now this load of nonsense: As quoted from <409@sci34hub.UUCP> by gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston): +--------------- | My gut feeling is that somebody who already has the equivalent of | most of this in place (in the comp groups) wants the 90% (guesstimate) | of us who don't run VMS to support the 10% who do with a significant | part of our resources. +--------------- Your gut feeling is based on a misapprehension. +--------------- | > Obviously no one can just stop them ..... | | Ever hear of the "rmgroup" command? I think that'll stop them from | my site--considering that we have no DEC hardware in my division, | I can't see supporting something that duplicates part of what I'm | getting already. +--------------- You have this right in any case, but even more so in the case of a separate hierarchy. +--------------- | Further, this is USENET, not VMS-SUPPORTED-BY-REAL-OS-NET. We have +--------------- IDIOT ALERT!!! Keep your OS-religious-jihad beliefs out of it. +--------------- | guidlines about forming new newsgroups. We're all supposed to follow | these guidelines, partly to operate in concensus--i.e., operate in | a manner that is generally agreed upon by the net users and admins. +--------------- Correct. IN THE USENET HIERARCHIES. To wit: the guidelines apply ONLY in the following seven hierarchies: comp, sci, talk, news, soc, rec, misc. ALL OTHER HIERARCHIES ARE NOT PART OF THE USENET. +--------------- | This hierarchy was not voted upon by the net, much less any of the | sub-groups in it. It won't be coming into this site for two real +--------------- It doesn't have to be. Oh, yes, I know, I constantly run into arguments about how the Usenet is the programs and the data flowing over the phone lines as a result of those programs. WRONG. By this argument, Ohio Bell is the Fidonet *and* the Usenet in the state of Ohio, and similar for all the other RBOCs and independent phone companies. THE TRANSPORT MECHANISM IS NOT THE USENET. Remember that! If it took your fancy, you could create your own hierarchy, no questions asked. +--------------- | 1) It is not an "official" newsgroup, within one of the | existing hierarchies, approved by the net as a whole. +--------------- "Official" nonsense. Official doesn't exist; even Spaf's list of newsgroups is nothing mroe than a guide for those who want it. And in any case, the rules of the Usenet (remember the seven hierarchies I named above) don't apply to any other hierarchy. When's the last time the "net" votes on an alt group? A biz group? A bionet group? Or should all of those hierarchies curl up and die too because nobody solicited your opinion before creating them? Your opinion matters only insofar as it concerns your willingness or lack of same to carry the hierarchy on your site. +--------------- | formed here, and that's not going to happen. If the initiators | of this vmsnet thing are confident that it'd be voted in favor | of, why wasn't it discussed and voted in properly? +--------------- Has it ever occurred to your overinflated, egotistical Unix-bigotry that DECUS doesn't give a d*mn what you think about it or whether it's carried on a Unix site? Get real. They are using the TRANSPORT MECHANISM. They are going to enforce their own rules via a central authority (DECUS), which nobody on the mainstream Usenet would accept in any case. As a result, they should -- and will -- use a separate hierarchy and therefore don't need the permission of every egotistical little site admin in the world in order to run their network. +--------------- | Agreed. Very much so. What was that site name, again--I need to | write a little script about it....something with an "rm" in it... +--------------- Gee, am I supposed to ask your permission before I create expnet.all? Before I post? Before I read news? Before I sneeze? DECUS couldn't care less about your unwillingness to carry vmsnet. That's why it's a separate hierarchy! Get your facts straight and *think* before you start flaming everyone for not getting your permission before doing their own thing without interfering with you. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/24/89)
In article <1989Nov20.005435.14063@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: > Henry, please elaborate on your contention that there are >"too many top-level names already"... Have you seen an "all groups" sys-file line lately? The days are long past when it would fit in 80 columns. And much of it is so stupidly unnecessary. There are *always* people who want group X and don't want group Y, but those distinctions almost never seem to fall along the lines of "give me comp but not vmsnet". We really would lose very little by integrating most of the non-mainstream top-level groups into the big ones, perhaps with some sort of agreement about local management of the namespace. It would not increase the mainstream volume a lot -- most of those groups are fairly quiet -- and it would give those groups much wider distribution with much less hassle. >To me it seems that the creation of >a new top-level name is an ideal way to handle the potential traffic for >lots of new sites that may come on the heels of this new set of software. We didn't do it for MSDOS or the Amiga or any of the other operating systems, and this somehow hasn't caused any major problems, even though the groups concerned with those systems are among the busiest on Usenet. Why on Earth should we do it for VMS? -- That's not a joke, that's | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology NASA. -Nick Szabo | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/24/89)
From: mark@cblpf.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) >There are two reasons why traffic is growing so rapidly. One is that >the number of people on the net is growing rapidly. The other is that >new newgroups are being created at an alarming rate. People, yes. But group creation? I still don't believe that the mere creation of a group affects traffic much (other than perhaps redirecting it.) I am sure there are exceptions (soc.culture.* might be one major area of exception, so your example is probably good even if as a general rule it's not so good.) The creation of groups is a *symptom* of the net populous growing rapidly much more than a *cause*. And holding back group creation is probably the worst way to try to slow down traffic growth. Once people get that idea they'll just start acting in uncontrollable ways to get their interest posted. And I wouldn't blame them. >VMSNET is not without precedent. There has been a unix-pc.* net for >years now. It's not bothering anybody. Neither will VMSNET. >Furthermore, objecting to the creation of VMSNET is blatant censorship: >you're telling somebody else what they can do with their own machines! >It's akin to forbidding a small group from publishing their own >magazine or newsletter. By the very nature of the alternate heirarchy, >you won't carry it unless you ask for it. *IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP*. Geee. Be careful with loaded words like that. IN THE FIRST PLACE (sorry for shouting), censorship is something the government does to people as an act of law and using their unique police powers. Anything else is at best metaphorically similar but...well, Freedom of the Press does not guarantee you space on the front page of the New York Times. Telling someone to shut up is not censorship, unless you happen to be a government. Most of us aren't. Secondly, most people objecting to VMSNET (myself included) only did so because they wanted to see the groups in the main hierarchies. To a one! If anything, I feel more like I reached out a hand and they bit it. It's hard to call that CENSORSHIP, even metaphorically. To follow your analogy, it's more like "don't create that little special interest magazine, here, we'll give you all the space you need to publish your material. You might find that offer unacceptable, but it's hardly censorship. As to unix-pc and other narrow interest top-levels. No, they don't bother anyone (we have over 50 top-levels on World here, mostly geographic.) I think the point was that it doesn't *help* anyone either. Most of the top-levels like unix-pc have almost no traffic, probably due to the fact that they're top-level and few distribute them. The rest of your point is valid I suppose but opens new cans of worms. If the justification for new hierarchies is so sites can easily choose NOT to carry something, than what method do we use (if any) to sensibly have those created? Any? Is the opposite true, should we just flatten the whole tree? We all know there are sites who want much of alt. but not, typically, alt.sex. Should we have a sex top-level? Should we take every topic for which there might be a significant number of sites disinterested and make them top-level? Abortion, politics, sex, religion, various OS's and machines (if AT&T wants to easily split out VMS because they're the Unix home, do they also want to split out MS/DOS, OS/2, Macintosh, Amiga etc for the same reason? Why not?) If we are to use the term "censorship" isn't making it easier to not carry groups based on various business and political policies a helluva lot more like censorship than trying to just carry the material in the mainstream where it belongs? *We're* ``censoring'' the VMSNET folks because *we're* not making it easy for you to refuse to distribute their material? Think about it. I think we have a slave serving two masters. What are the top-level hiearchies for? To sort out subjects sensibly or to make it easy to refuse to carry certain topics? Although there is some overlap in those aims I think we've long since hit the point where they're at odds. Perhaps it should simply be made easier to take whatever groups you do or don't want and let the hierarchies be used for broad top-level splits based on subject matter rather than some vague sense of marketing concerns (by "marketing" I mean that one has to somehow guess what the population out there wants and doesn't want, in broad swaths, to decide how to define the top-levels.) Otherwise it seems like we're headed for a lot of madness. Maybe we're already there. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (11/24/89)
Greg> In article <1989Nov20.005435.14063@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.UUCP
Greg> (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
Henry> On 23 Nov 89 18:59:50 GMT, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) said:
Greg> To me it seems that the creation of a new top-level name is an ideal
Greg> way to handle the potential traffic for lots of new sites that may
Greg> come on the heels of this new set of software.
Henry> We didn't do it for MSDOS or the Amiga or any of the other operating
Henry> systems, and this somehow hasn't caused any major problems, even though
Henry> the groups concerned with those systems are among the busiest on Usenet.
Henry> Why on Earth should we do it for VMS?
The difference I see is that a lot of VMS sites may be running news--very
few Macs or DOSboxes or Amigas are (at least in proportion to the number of
them out there). It makes sense to let them have a completely separate
hierarchy, for the ones that are just starting with netnews software and
don't want--or can't take--the whole USENET. (And for those of us with
micros who *do* want feeds--it's far easier for me simply not to take
vmsnet from any of my feeds than to cut comp.os.vms.all out but take
comp.most.of.the.rest.) [Just think--we might sucker them in with this
VMSNET thing, then they'll want news., comp., and sci., then we can sneak
misc. and rec. under the door, then soc. and talk., and pretty soon we've
got 'em hooked on alt. :-]
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet>
"Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."chuckb@lotex.UUCP (Chuck Bentley) (11/24/89)
In article <51369@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >You can't win, can you? > >People want to create groups within comp (& etc.) and they have to go through >a time consuming and often flame-ridden process. > >Create your own hierarchy, however, and you get flamed just as much. To have the freedom of a true anarchey as we do, one must expect to have trade-offs. The NET is about the only place I can imagine that this would work. If we were standing face to face we would probably kill each other before we could calm down enough to think things thru rationally. Personaly I love it. Chuck... ..!moray!lotex!chuckb (lotex - as in NOT high tech)
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (11/24/89)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1989Nov20.005435.14063@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >> Henry, please elaborate on your contention that there are >>"too many top-level names already"... >Have you seen an "all groups" sys-file line lately? The days are long >past when it would fit in 80 columns. Hmm --- I don't know about this. From brutus' sys file: ># If someone sends it, I'll take it... >ME:all,to.brutus,!to:: That, to me, is a true "all groups" sys-file line. Well, not really --- it does delete my outgoing to groups --- but that's not really a loss. I could say 'ME:all::' and _really_ take everything (perhaps I'll go do that). Note: I do this by choice, because I want everything. If you don't, putting all in your sys file is a dumb idea. Make sure you mean it. But, if you do, it's possible to fit "all groups" in 8 columns... >We didn't do it for MSDOS or the Amiga or any of the other operating >systems, and this somehow hasn't caused any major problems, even though >the groups concerned with those systems are among the busiest on Usenet. >Why on Earth should we do it for VMS? Because, as several others have pointed out, VMSNET is _not just_ a set of groups about VMS. It's also --- and this is very important --- a hierarchy controlled by DECUS' VMSNET group. This means it will _never_ be a part of the Usenet, in that it won't have the Usenet style, won't follow Usenet voting conventions, won't necessarily uphold the "no commercial speech" rules, etc. IMHO, if a group's name is to be in the "big seven", it _must_ follow Usenet policy (such as it is). Biz cannot be moved into the Usenet namespace, because it won't follow Usenet policy. The same is true for gnu, and for clarinet, and for alt, and for VMSNET. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well. New NNTP connections always available! Send mail if you're interested.
mikes@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mike Shawaluk) (11/24/89)
In article <1989Nov24.072732.5206@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>We didn't do it for MSDOS or the Amiga or any of the other operating >>systems, and this somehow hasn't caused any major problems, even though >>the groups concerned with those systems are among the busiest on Usenet. >>Why on Earth should we do it for VMS? >Because, as several others have pointed out, VMSNET is _not just_ >a set of groups about VMS. It's also --- and this is very important --- >a hierarchy controlled by DECUS' VMSNET group. This means it will >_never_ be a part of the Usenet, in that it won't have the Usenet >style, won't follow Usenet voting conventions, won't necessarily >uphold the "no commercial speech" rules, etc. As long as we're on the subject, and because I'm an Amiga owner, I noticed that there are one or two Amiga-related newsgroups under VMSNET. Thus, these groups are sort of parallel existances of comp.sys.amiga.* (except that in my recent reading, they seem to be a bit off the beaten path, since many if not most of the posters there don't get comp.*). Since my main site doesn't (currently) get vmsnet.*, I don't see this material very regularly, but it seems to me that creating an alternate news hierarchy shouldn't duplicate existing newsgroups that aren't related to that hierarchy's purpose or scope. That is, if there were a specific class of issues that dealt with the Amiga and VAX/VMS systems, then maybe it would be okay to have one or more Amiga groups under VMSNET. But to me, it just looks like most of the posters only have BITNET access (i.e., no Internet), and so they're in an isolated subspace. And with the (lack of) acceptance of VMSNET, it seems that they will stay there. -- - Mike Shawaluk "Rarely have we seen a mailer -> DOMAIN: mikes@lakesys.lakesys.com fail which has thoroughly -> UUCP: ...!uunet!marque!lakesys!mikes followed these paths." -> BITNET: 7117SHAWALUK@MUCSD
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (11/25/89)
In article <1694.2569212f@mccall.uucp>, tp@mccall.uucp writes: > In article <409@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: > > [ ... erronious conclusions and premature objections deleted .... ] > [ ... rebuttal to my misconceptions deleted as well .... ] > Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 > The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA > UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu I owe my apologies to Mr. Poot, for the erronious conclusions I jumped to (right before jumping on his posting) and to the net for the amount of bandwidth I've caused to be wasted unnecessarily. A later posting from him clarified things a great deal, and I realized that I'd made a big mistake. I've acknowledged this to two or three people via email, and will probably (deservedly) receive a few more flames of various levels. I understand (after reading his second posting) that his purpose is not to take advantage of Usenet, and that he (and others) had tried to convince the VMS people to start out under a Usenet group, and been met with disfavor. While there is always some competitiveness between two camps of anything, there's a pretty large split between UNIX and VMS users/admins. I suspect that a hardware manufacturer fans the flames in this split a little, but that doesn't excuse my comments. Now that I know what Mr. Poot is doing, I have no objections to his plans. In the event that this company ends up with any VMS equipment, or I start feeding a VMS site, I see no reason that I would not carry VMSnet if the users want it. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
don@gp.govt.nz (Don Stokes, GPO) (11/27/89)
In article <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > In article <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>In article <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> tp@mccall.uucp writes: >>>...newsgroups vmsnet.*.... This hierarchy is for topics of interest to >>>VAX/VMS sites. >> >>We will unhesitatingly carry them if and when they become subgroups of >>comp.os.vms. We will be very reluctant to carry them if you insist on >>having your own top-level name; there are too many top-level names already, >>and I utterly fail to see why you need one of your own. > > No! This is a different distribution -- therefore it definitely should have > its own top-level name. The whole inet thing -- running a completely separate > distribution within the traditional namespace -- has adaquately demonstrated > that this is the wrong way to go. It's easy to handwave and blame it on poor > software, or poor adminsitration; but the fact remains that running different > distributions within the same namespace just doesn't work very well. Think of > it as administrative friendliness. > > What next? Fold biz.all and clari.all into the comp, sci, etc. hierarchy? > > vmsnet.* is the right way to go. > > <csg> 'ang on. There is one *major* problem with new top level names - simply, that many sites (eg all? New Zealand ones) only get a subset of all available newsgroups. If you create a new top level name, WE WILL NOT GET IT!!!! It's fine to just blame poor software etc, as you say - but some of us live in the *real* *word* (ie outside the USA 8-) - issues preventing full news coverage include economics - virtually zilch of the problem is technical. Don Stokes ZL2TNM / / vuwcomp!windy!gpwd!don Systems Programmer /GP/ Government Printing Office PSI%0530147000028::DON __(and_Postmaster)__/ /__Wellington__New_Zealand________don@gp.govt.nz________ No matter what goes wrong with your carefully planned database system, there is always someone who says they knew it would.
bruceki@microsoft.UUCP (Bruce King) (11/29/89)
I like the idea proposed to tie the continued viability to the newsgroup to its readership, but I'm going to point out that one of the most-hated (the newsgroup most often mentioned as disliked) alt.sex is also one of the top 25 newsgroups (as per news.lists) I agree that the 100-more-than-no-vote rules currently in place don't cut it. There are just not enough people who care enough to read these groups and vote NO, and too many people who'll post virtually everywhere in search of a YES vote. Given that there are 14,000 posters this week I'd like to see the yes/no tied to THAT number, not to some fixed arbitrary number, like 500. I'd like to say that the YES votes must outnumber the no votes by at least 2% of the average number of posters in the month that the vote was taken. This will continue to work even as the network grows. That would make it 280 yes votes to create a new group, and mean that it was roughly 3 times harder to create a new group. And as the network grows, this number would grow as well. Comments? uunet!microsoft!bruceki (work) (206) 882-8080 uw-beaver!sumax!polari!bruceki (home)
kenji@ybbs.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Kenji Rikitake) (11/29/89)
In article <744@gp.govt.nz> don@gp.govt.nz (Don Stokes, GPO) writes: >'ang on. There is one *major* problem with new top level names - simply, >that many sites (eg all? New Zealand ones) only get a subset of all >available newsgroups. If you create a new top level name, WE WILL NOT >GET IT!!!! I just want to write I'm also one of the refugees, who actually RUNS VMSNET at TWICS, and who can't afford paying more than 100,000yen ($800) to get access to UUNET DIRECTLY. <sigh> I'm not complaining; I just want to subscribe vmsnet.* groups. -- Kenji Rikitake, TWICS sysop, running VMSNET(DECUS UUCP) at TWICS's MicroVAX ][, getting well-connected to JUNET -- Kenji Rikitake: Packet Radio User's Group Vice-President International 72407.524@compuserve.com / kenji%dctwcs.das.net@sun.com (TWICS) kenji@jj1bdx.ampr.org [44.129.16.82] <- AMPRnet in JA: kenji@jj1bdx.ampr.jp kenji@ybbs.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp [130.69.77.1] <- uupc test site in Japan
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/30/89)
Any 'group creation' system merely defines the *default* for the existence and propagation of a group. It must answer the question of whether, in general, a group is worth transmitting around almost the whole net. Since it seems a majority of sites stick with the default, this has become important, but it is still only the default. A group for talking about sex *is* highly desired. Both readership, posting level and the newsgroup "voting" system say this very strongly.(*) So the default should be, by any standard of this sort, to have a sex group. It is, however, likely that some site owners would be scared by it, and not follow that default. (*)One can speculate that alt.sex would be the most popular newsgroup on the net if it were fully distributed. In the arbitron surveys, it's readership/propagation figure surpasses all groups, including rec.humor.funny. On the other hand, add 40% more sites to the group and I suspect many of the existing readers would drop out. Unmoderated groups seem to reach a critical mass where as participation increases, noise increases, driving out many of the participants, often including the most valued. As usenet grows, group ratings drop, it seems. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tale@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence) (12/01/89)
In article <744@gp.govt.nz> don@gp.govt.nz (Don Stokes, GPO) writes:
'ang on. There is one *major* problem with new top level names - simply,
that many sites (eg all? New Zealand ones) only get a subset of all
available newsgroups. If you create a new top level name, WE WILL NOT
GET IT!!!!
So what are you are saying then is that the name of the newsgroup(s)
should be chosen for distribution potential rather than how well the
group(s) fit into the namespace? That we should make groups with
names which attempt to subvert existing control mechanisms for control
and flow of article traffic? Just checking.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
"... the broader subject of usenet customs and other bizarre social phenomena."
-- Phil Agre <agre@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>