ZSYJKAA@WYOCDC1.BITNET (Jim Kirkpatrick 307 766-5303) (01/15/88)
I'd like to initiate a brief exchange of ideas on the pros and cons of the PHONE command on VMS. Some people around here feel that the PHONE command should be taken out because it eats up resources (but so does the backspace key; in other words, how much "resource" could PHONE possibly eat up?); because users tend to use it to simply chat and gossip (I can't prove this because we just now became a VMS site, and this argument comes from somebody who worked at a VMS site that had this "problem"; I think that even chatting is fine, it improves keyboard skills); because if a person receives a PHONE call, he feels compelled to answer, which is an interruption (I feel the same way about telephones though); also, since we don't have any VT-type terminals, PHONE is kind of useless anyway. My own feelings are that, if it's really such a problem, we could include SET BROADCAST=NOPHONE in the system login.com, and if a user WANTS to be able to receive calls, he can change it manually or in his login.com. The removal of PHONE simply because it CAN be misused and/or is a nuisance is not reason enough to do it; this is removal of things that make VMS VMS. It is also analogous to us being moral police, shutting down access to anything that might be improperly used (so can the FTN compiler). One objection to SET BROADCAST=NOPHONE is that it tells the caller that the target is in fact logged on, but has "unplugged" his phone, which has all sorts of perceived negative connotations. If one could cause NOPHONE to claim the target is not logged on, and if one could "hide" from being seen as being logged on (except to sysmgr of course), then you could ensure a nice quiet "do not disturb" environment if wanted. To use the telephone system as an analogy, if I unplug my phone, a caller cannot tell if I've done that or if I'm simply not in my office. This all brings to mind an item a while back about system managers who "helpfully" run around changing system-wide defaults to suit his personal tastes. That writer stated that VMS should be left alone except to provide something a user cannot get in any other way. I agree. I'd like to hear what goes on with this issue at other academic sites. How many of you love PHONE? Hate it? Shut it down?
ALEWIS@UTCVM.BITNET (Adam Lewis) (01/17/88)
The PHONE command is one of those utilities that you either love or
hate. It can be extremely useful at times. For example, if you have all
of your VAXen spread out over a network and you need to contact someone
logged on to a machine that's on the other side of campus for something
(resolution of system problems, etc.). It does eat a large amount of
system resources.
As to the misuse of PHONE, you generally have to depend on your
users being good citzens :-). PHONE is like most tools in that it can
be extremely useful if used in the correct manner but it can be extremely
deadly if used incorrectly.
========================================================================
Adam Lewis BITNET: ALEWIS@UTCVM
University of Tennesse at Chattanooga
Chattanooga, TN
"What a long strange trip it's been."
========================================================================cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Christopher F. Chiesa) (01/17/88)
I'm not a system manager, but have been a (student) user of the Ball State University VaxCluster for the past two and a half years. The cluster has 4 nodes (originally four 11/785's, now three 11/785's and an 8650), used by several thousand students, faculty, and staff. In the time I've been here, I've seen a lot of genuine ABUSE of the PHONE utility; a conversation between two or more people sitting a few terminals apart, chatting in PHONE and oc- casionally commenting verbally ABOUT the PHONE conversation, isn't impossible, for instance. Some sort of control does seem to be needed, and our system managers have tried several different measures. The first control measure in my experience was the total removal of the PHONE utility. That measure released ALL resources used by PHONE -- but the "gossipers" and "abusers" simply switched to using MAIL instead, thereby using not only CPU and I/O resources, but now DISK SPACE also! (Each user has a disk quota of 1000 blocks, but students' MAIL.MAI files grow to 900+ blocks on a regular basis.) Next (to relieve some of the MAIL abuse, I presume), PHONE was restored, amid warnings that it would be "taken down again if abused" in the system login messages. Of course, students figured "Well, MY phone call won't hurt," and abuse started up again. Finally, after another brief PHONEless period, PHONE came back once more, but subject to the restriction that it can now be used only between users logged into the SAME NODE, rather than cross-node as had been possible previ- ously. This is where the situation stands today, and in my opinion it's a reasonable compromise: cross-node I/O resources, at least, aren't used up by PHONE, and a user trying to get work done only has to worry about interrup- tion by users of ONE node, rather than FOUR. (Does that constitute a quarter- ing of the abuse potential, or am I being too simplistic?) A lot of people still converse through MAIL for hours on end, but at least not EVERYONE does. Chris Chiesa Senior, CS Dept. Ball State University Muncie, IN
ca053@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) (01/17/88)
I know that the University of Nebraska at Lincoln disables Phone for
user accounts, and I could understand them doing this as their 780's
were already on their knees running engineering software. Now, however,
they've got an 8800, and are still disabling it. I can't see this.
Granted, phone does use system resources, but at least around here I've
not seen THAT many users just idly chatting. They try it at first for the
novelty, but it wears off quickly. Phone is handy for talking to people
across campus, and I would think that it would be better than the thousands
of one-liners being passed back and forth through Mail as a result of
disabling phone.
Not to mention the fact that a .CLD file can be written quite easily by
anyone with a working knowledge of VMS programming, and distributed to anyone
that wants it. I've got a file like this, and it's only 12 lines long.
Tim Russell, Sophomore
University of Nebraska at Omahaecragg@GMUVAX.GMU.EDU ("EDWARD CRAGG") (01/18/88)
> I'd like to initiate a brief exchange of ideas on the pros and cons of > the PHONE command on VMS. ... > > I'd like to hear what goes on with this issue at other academic sites. > How many of you love PHONE? Hate it? Shut it down? > I am a long time (15 years) part time (1 course per semester) faculity member. Since I am only on campus during the class sessions, I have been using PHONE and MAIL to maintain communication with my students. In particular I maintain on-line office hours. Needless to say, PHONE is the key resource which I use for these sessions. I would be very upset to see it disabled at our site. ------