msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (10/28/84)
> > With the wonders of modern electronics, USENET editors wouldn't have to send > > copies of original articles...just pointers to them... > > (or send to interested parties--"subscribers") an article of this ilk: > > > So let's go with it. We have global article ID's -- let's put 'em to > work! > > Ken Arnold I agree this completely with Ken. Let's do it. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@qubix.UUCP, qubix!msc@decwrl.ARPA ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!qubix!msc
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/30/84)
>> > With the wonders of modern electronics, USENET editors wouldn't have to send >> > copies of original articles...just pointers to them... >> > (or send to interested parties--"subscribers") an article of this ilk: >> > >> So let's go with it. We have global article ID's -- let's put 'em to >> work! >> >> Ken Arnold WEll, Ken, as soon as you have this neat feature implemented we'll be MORE than happy to use it. I would implement it but I simply don't have the time. Tell you what-- until you have it done, let's make do with what we have, okay? chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
stv@qantel.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) (10/31/84)
> >> > With the wonders of modern electronics, USENET editors wouldn't have to send > >> > copies of original articles...just pointers to them... > >> > (or send to interested parties--"subscribers") an article of this ilk: > >> > > >> So let's go with it. We have global article ID's -- let's put 'em to > >> work! > >> > >> Ken Arnold > > WEll, Ken, as soon as you have this neat feature implemented we'll be MORE > than happy to use it. I would implement it but I simply don't have the > time.... > > chuq Hey, wait! Don't ask Ken to do any programming until after he's fixed the nymph bug in rogue! That's much more important! Also, I still need a rogue binary for our VAX that's running System 5.2, and he hasn't even asked me to let him use it for development yet. Maybe someone else on the net has more time than either of you two. -- Steve Vance {ucbvax,ihnp4,zehntel,onyx}!dual!qantel!stv Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (10/31/84)
In article <1786@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) writes: >> > With the wonders of modern electronics, USENET editors wouldn't have to send >> > copies of original articles...just pointers to them... >> > (or send to interested parties--"subscribers") an article of this ilk: >> > >> So let's go with it. We have global article ID's -- let's put 'em to >> work! >> >> Ken Arnold > >WEll, Ken, as soon as you have this neat feature implemented we'll be MORE >than happy to use it. I would implement it but I simply don't have the >time. Tell you what-- until you have it done, let's make do with what we >have, okay? <ENTER HEAVY SARCASM MODE> Ah, yes. Silly me. I suggested a feature without having yet implemented it. I apologize. Next time I like an idea, FIRST I will implement it, THEN I will suggest it. This makes so much sense, I'm surprised I didn't see it before. <EXIT HEAVY SARCASM MODE> Seriously, do you really think I should just dive in and implement a feature without having other people comment? I saw a suggestion I liked and I submitted an argument in favor of it. I still think this is a much better system than "mod." moderated news groups (I will not repeat why -- please read my other article on the subject). If you have problems with the idea, say so. This kind of comment is a total null, except that it can intimidate people who have ideas to suggest. Ken Arnold P.S. I am told by the original suggestor that someone is implementing this.
avolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (11/02/84)
I have no problem with this.... But please, no special news groups for
me (See subject line !!?!?). I'm touched (so to speak) really.
--
Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support
301/731-4100 x4227
UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio
ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismochuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/04/84)
>>WEll, Ken, as soon as you have this neat feature implemented we'll be MORE >>than happy to use it. ><ENTER HEAVY SARCASM MODE> >Ah, yes. Silly me. I suggested a feature without having yet >implemented it. I apologize. Next time I like an idea, FIRST I will >implement it, THEN I will suggest it. This makes so much sense, I'm >surprised I didn't see it before. ><EXIT HEAVY SARCASM MODE> Ok, the sarcasm was a bit on the heavy side, but there is a valid point in there. Too many people out there seem to think that Usenet occurs by magic, and that good suggestions get implemented by magic somewhere. Well, unfortunately, it isn't that way-- even plaid warlocks have limitations on what they can do with their time. I DO believe that your idea has merit and I'd like to see more about it-- reality says that waiting to get it implemented, debugged, and installed on enough sites to make it worth using is a serious mistake. We need to not only plan for the future, but work with what we have now. What we have now is 2.10.2 and moderated groups, and there are problems with them (a number of sites don't seem to be forwarding mod.all right now-- I'm going to attempt to track them down in the next couple of weeks). There are a group of people, mostly insane I'd guess, who put in a lot of their spare time and effort to try and keep Usenet running smoothly and make it better. People like Mark Horton, like Lauren, and Rick, and Spaf and myself. We all happen to be human, which means we need to eat and sleep and occasionally we screw up, but the common denominator is that we care about the net and are willing to do what we think should be done for the sake of the net. I don't know what the rest of them see, but I know that I spend a lot of my time reading articles and mail from people screaming and complaining about all of the problems that the net has (it is far from perfect)-- relatively rarely is this criticism constructive, rarer still is there any attempt at putting together a solution. A lot of what I see is 'This is bogus, someone needs to fix it so I can read net.jokes again.'A Much of the time, that someone is Mark, or Rick, or Lauren, or Spaf, or, well you get the idea. So, if my sarcasm weighs a little heavy, I'm sorry. I spend a lot of time seeing people screaming about problems, but few of them offering solutions-- they'd rather read net.flame. I'm not looking for fan mail-- heaven forbid! I have enough trouble answering all the hate mail I get, besides I learn a lot more from the hate mail about what IS wrong and what can be fixed. What I'd like to see is a little more understanding from the real world out there about how much work DOES go into usenet, and why it we don't always get the latest whizbangs into the software a week after people decide it's a great idea-- sometimes you have to work with what you have, problems and all, and sometimes you simply can't wait for the whizbang to be implemented. >Seriously, do you really think I should just dive in and implement a >feature without having other people comment? No, but I think it SHOULD be followed up-- the idea has definite merits. But we should realize that usenet is a volunteer effort, and any effort takes time. I don't think we really want to wait around for things like these to be implemented-- we need to make the best use of what we already have. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/04/84)
Oh, come now. I am not an unkown person in the UNIX community. I know what it means to do volunteer work (rogue and curses, for example). Next time I (or others) say something like "Why don't the lazy bastards who run this thing get the lead out of their asses and fix the fucking net to be the way _I_ want it to be!" please feel free to rebuke me (or others) in the manner you have. But since all that was done was to support with arguments a seemingly practical suggestion for an improvement to the net (and one which would eliminate a great deal of problems and friction arising from "mod." groups in some areas) I feel your complaints are misplaced. I know all the frustration that arises from people who DO make statements like the above, but you have dumped this frustration into a pleasant discussion, innocent of this evil. Ken Arnold
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/05/84)
I think Ken Arnold's idea is an execellent one. Not only does it have almost all of the benifits of moderation, it has few of its problems. The ability to have several lists for the same newsgroup is especially nice; the need to divide groups into subgroups would be reduced. The only issue not directly handled by this selected-articles system is the traffic problem. In fact, it would *seem* that the added lists make the problem worse. Of course, the ``mod.fred + net.fred'' problem adds to traffic as well, so it would seem that moderation, at least initially, has the same problem. The claim made for moderation is that as people stop posting to the net.fred group and post to the mod.fred group, traffic will go down as trashy, off-the-subject, and duplicate postings are}i eliminated. I claim that a selected-articles system will have the same effect, since if it is used by a majority of readers (as the mod.* groups would require) spurious postings would have little audience, and fewer such postings would be made. Moderation couldn't do much better unless net.* groups were actually removed. I suspect that Chuq just had a bad day when he pooh-poohed the idea. Perhaps being a moderator is tiring him out... :-) -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (11/09/84)
One thing that can be done with moderated groups that cannot be done
with Ken Arnold's idea of pointer lists is provide a newsgroup which
can be broadcast over some public media. That is, the material has
been screened to allow it to be broadcast (like over a radio link,
for example). This is an important feature which may become more
apparent as time goes on.
--
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-sally}!gatech!spafarnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/12/84)
In article <10737@gatech.UUCP> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: > >One thing that can be done with moderated groups that cannot be done >with Ken Arnold's idea of pointer lists is provide a newsgroup which >can be broadcast over some public media. That is, the material has >been screened to allow it to be broadcast (like over a radio link, >for example). This is an important feature which may become more >apparent as time goes on. >-- >Off the Wall of Gene Spafford Well, yes and no. Two comments (1) It is not my idea. I support it, I argue for it, but I did not invent it. Unfortunately I lost my copy of the original article so I can not name the person who submitted it to the net. (2) If you have the ability to follow a selective list, you can as easily have distribution over the public media filtered through the same mechanism. Ken Arnold