kwe@BUITB.BU.EDU (Kent England) (12/13/89)
I call your attention to a Viewpoint column in the December 1989 issue of the Communications of the ACM (Vol 32, Number 12, page 1389-1390) by John McCarthy of Stanford's School of Engineering with the provocative title of "Networks Considered Harmful For Electronic Mail". This is an opinion piece which members of this list will appreciate for presenting another viewpoint on the future of electronic mail services. Kent England, Boston University
Nagle@cup.portal.com (John - Nagle) (12/16/89)
Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. John Nagle
barmar@Think.COM (12/17/89)
In article <25086@cup.portal.com> Nagle@cup.portal.com (John - Nagle) writes: > Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is >on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. That was precisely the point McCarthy was making in his article. He said that fax has become popular because it works with the current home communications network (the phone system). For email to become popular it will have to fit in similarly, rather than requiring users to have an account on a computer connected to an email network. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (12/17/89)
In <25086@cup.portal.com> Nagle@cup.portal.com (John Nagle) writes: > Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is >on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. A year or so ago, some people here had need to establish regular communications with somebody at Monash University in Australia. We proved that email worked in both directions but then the guy at the other end insisted we switch to fax. Seems that he gets charged for both incomming and outgoing email and fax was cheaper! -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (12/18/89)
From article <1989Dec16.191021.26031@phri.nyu.edu>, by roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith): > In <25086@cup.portal.com> Nagle@cup.portal.com (John Nagle) writes: >> Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is >>on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. > > A year or so ago, some people here had need to establish regular > communications with somebody at Monash University in Australia. We proved > that email worked in both directions but then the guy at the other end > insisted we switch to fax. Seems that he gets charged for both incomming > and outgoing email and fax was cheaper! I doubt this. It takes 4x times longer to transmit one page of information on fax (asume ascii) than regular email. Also if they where being charged for incoming calls than they where useing a service that charged them for it. Way they didn't they just get a uucp connection and email direct? Fax will still play a big part in communications. It is very convenient to receive fax messages via email. At least than you can have routers and/or directory services. I see this popping up for Xenix and Unix system's already where some software vendors have written drivers for boards like the AST fax boards. For a user that wishes never to store/retrieve/process such documents than maybe a simple fax will do. For a paper office this is fine. In the real world computers keep track of information. Therefor I don't see fax replaceing email. It would be difficult to repalce something like the whole Usenet by fax. Mergeing it would be nice. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda pacbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) (12/19/89)
<John Nagle> > Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is >on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. <Barry Margolin> >That was precisely the point McCarthy was making in his article. He said >that fax has become popular because it works with the current home >communications network (the phone system). For email to become popular it >will have to fit in similarly, rather than requiring users to have an >account on a computer connected to an email network. <Roy Smith> > A year or so ago, some people here had need to establish regular >communications with somebody at Monash University in Australia. We proved >that email worked in both directions but then the guy at the other end >insisted we switch to fax. Seems that he gets charged for both incomming >and outgoing email and fax was cheaper! I have seen comments like this before. And I have attempted to answer them before. It is a shame to see supposed experts on communications who are apparently as ignorent of what is really available as the general public. I personnaly intend to write a letter (or maybe just send a copy of this message) to the ACM and see what kind of hornets nest it stirs up. The only reason that FAX is more popular than Email is "PR". You cannot watch TV without seeing/hearing about FAX. It is in the programs as well as the commercials. You can't drive down town without hearing it on the radio, seeing it on billboards, and seeing banners in the stores all pushing FAX. They sell them in the MALL and in Radio Shack. Before long there will be a guy on the street corner holding his coat open and whispering "Hey Mac, you want to buy a FAX real cheap!!" If you have any doubt of this, try a little experiment. Ask a couple of your neighbors if they know what FAX is and then ask if they know what Email is. The try it on the local kids. My 10 year old daughter knows what FAX is and yet claims to not know what Email is even though she has used it herself (on my home UNIX box) and she sees me using it every day. It's all a matter of PR. But the truth is, FAX offers nothing that can't be done with the PC sitting on your desk. And the PC can even do it better. You can send Email from PC to PC or PC to "Real computer" or "Real computer" to PC. The softtware and hardware already exist. In fact they have been around for years. The hardware we all have and the software doesn't even cost anything!!! You can send text, you can send pictures, you can even send color pictures. And you can do it the same way you do with a FAX. You can call the addressee on the phone and send it to him directly. As a matter of fact it has probably reached the point where you can buy all the hardware necessary to do this for about the same price as one of those full featured FAX machines. Interestingly enough, the Email scenario has numerous advantages over the FAX scenario. I can move more data quicker. I can manipulate the data easier when it arrives. And if the number is busy, I don't have to stand around and wait. The PC can do it for me. So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world how much better it really is?? bill gunshannon 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/19/89)
In article <25086@cup.portal.com> Nagle@cup.portal.com (John - Nagle) writes: > Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is >on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. As the man said, "it depends on which real world we are talking about". :-) Don't forget that one reason why fax has caught on in places where electronic mail hasn't is its appeal to technophobic managers: it's a way of sending mail electronically without having to use a keyboard (after all, keyboards are for secretaries and other underlings, not for managers). -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
cire@CISCO.COM (cire|eric) (12/19/89)
I think the point that McCarthy was making about FAX was not so much that Email could do it better or whether FAX could do it better but the ubiquitous nature of the interconnect. With FAX all you need to communicate with someone is get their phone number. Almost everyone these days (at least in our part of the world) has one of those. The same thing can't be said for Email addresses. Yes Computer based telecommunications has a great deal of more utility than FAX but I don't think that is the point. You must first make the connection before all that starts making a difference. The comments about PR were quite excellent and certainly play a part. -c cisco engineering
mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose) (12/19/89)
> So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't > those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world > how much better it really is?? What is great about FAX is really simple: Reason 1: FAX is turn-key in every aspect: any office person can install and use a fax machine without any serious training. For example, FAX addressing consists of using--get this--the telephone numbering system. What an idea! Why not use an addressing scheme that everyone is trained to use by their parents by age 5? In contrast, what does e-mail offer? Well, it's this glop invented by computer people who probably never had a normal childhood! The good old days of user@host are now local@domain and if you're *real* lucky there aren't any '%' or '!'-signs involved. But, wait there's more, now computer people who probably never had a normal childbirth (or perhaps conception) are into the act and we have MHS-attribute-list and the format is in ABSTRACT SYNTAX or BINARY no less! Actually, the addressing thing leads us to the next reason, which, as Einar Stefferud points out, is the biggie. Reason 2: FAX uses an already existing, global infrastructure. The FAX infrastructure is--get this--the telephone system. Everyone who needs to communicate has a connection to the telephone system. FAX machines hook up to this truly ubiquitous infrastructure. In constrast, there are gobs of networks supporting e-mail, some interconnected and some not. If you live in the heart of the Internet, you probably thing that the Internet is ubiquitous. Although I have a personal 56K line going straight to my house and upstairs to my IP router, I must regretfully inform you that this is the exception and not the rule. Summary: FAX is a wonderful example of an 80-year old technology that is technically indefensible but has the world's best user interface: no training needed. Having said all that, how can e-mail start competing? Well, marketing is a small part, but it's a second-order thing. We need: a global, e-mail infrastructure that is as ubiquitous as dial tone. To do this, we need to patch together all of the existing e-mail systems, make the gatewaying transparent, adopt a global addressing scheme, and then start making the technology accessible and usable by ordinary people who had normal childhoods. /mtr
702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) (12/19/89)
I don't think you read my whole posting. I can send Email from PC to PC
using the exact same Phone system that FAXers use. The software is easier
to set up than WordPerfect and the software is even FREE!!!
I still say it is all PR.
As for ease of use, even though it's already installed, our FAX takes
2 pages of instructions to send anything and it isn't in my office.
But I do have a PC and a MODEM on my desk.
bill gunshannon
702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNETroy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (12/19/89)
I wrote: > the guy at the other end insisted we switch to fax. Seems that he gets > charged for both incomming and outgoing email and fax was cheaper! 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) responded: > It is a shame to see supposed experts on communications who are apparently > as ignorent of what is really available as the general public. I'm not sure I understand. Are you are claiming I'm one of those "supposed experts"? I didn't say I thought FAX was better, just that the guy we were communicating with insisted (for good reasons or bad) that it was the preferred way to communicate. Since our goal was to send messages back and forth, not to prove a point, we switched to FAX. >So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't >those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world >how much better it really is?? What's so great about FAX is that it works and it's ubiquitous. Remember the hoo-ha in Beijing a few months back? It seemed that FAX was the primary means of communication in and out of China. Every fax machine in the world can talk to every other fax machine because they all talk the same language. With email, you have your choice of uucp, smtp, pop[123], csnet dialup (whatever they call it), bitnet, etc, etc, etc. FAX works, email sort of works, and only that if you have somebody willing to care for it with kid gloves. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (12/19/89)
In article <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) writes:
But the truth is, FAX offers nothing that can't be done with the PC sitting
on your desk. ...
Agreed.
So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" ...
If I want to send someone a FAX message, I can take it down the my local
supermarket, hand them my $3.50 and the piece of paper, and whooooosh,
a similar piece of paper pops out of my recipient's machine.
Or if I have enough FAX messages to send, I can buy my own FAX machine.
I put the piece of paper in it, dial the phone number, and press the little
green button.
*In principle*, E-mail is just as easy. *In principle*, you can set up a
machine with a modem and just tell people to call it.
In practice, there is no standardization in E-mail packages. You can get
one for free (Opus BBS), but it takes a good bit of tinkering to get it
working.
The way to market E-mail is to glom it onto a FAX machine. Make a
little box that you plug in between your FAX machine and the phone
line. Give it enough smarts so that it can distinguish between its
carrier and the FAX machines, and automatically forward the call to
the FAX machine. Put some RAM in it so it can hold incoming messages.
Put a RS-232 (ugh) line on it so a computer can read its output.
Write some software for the PC and Mac that downloads the messages
from the little box.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.
I think killing is value-neutral in and of itself. -- Gary Strand, 8 Nov 1989.
Liberals run this country, by and large. -- Clayton Cramer, 20 Nov 1989.
Shut up and mind your Canadian business, you meddlesome foreigner. -- TK, 23 N.perry@Morgan.COM (Perry Metzger) (12/19/89)
In article <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) writes: ><John Nagle> >> Well, in the real world, I understand that electronic mail is >>on the decline, and is being replaced by fax. > ><Barry Margolin> >>That was precisely the point McCarthy was making in his article. He said >>that fax has become popular because it works with the current home >>communications network (the phone system). For email to become popular it >>will have to fit in similarly, rather than requiring users to have an >>account on a computer connected to an email network. > >I have seen comments like this before. And I have attempted to answer >them before. It is a shame to see supposed experts on communications >who are apparently as ignorent of what is really available as the general >public. I personnaly intend to write a letter (or maybe just send a >copy of this message) to the ACM and see what kind of hornets nest it >stirs up. Right now, you can't go out to the store and buy an e-mail terminal, but you can buy a fax machine. Sure, you can buy a PC, set it up, use the right software, get a link to the proper service and stuff, but that is costly and, more significantly, requires thought. A person I know at Bellcore (Dan Nachbar) designed and built an electronic mail "appliance" on the premise that people will use e-mail if it is properly packaged. POMS (plain ol' mail system) has been successfully tested with large groups of naive users (retirement home residents in florida and Bellcore managers) and seems to have been highly successfull. Being able to go out to the store and buy an e-mail terminal will be what makes e-mail popular. .pm
koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (12/19/89)
In article <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) writes: >So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't >those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world >how much better it really is?? Because it's alien to most people. A fax machine acts like a copier, something everyone is familiar with, except the copy just happens to pop out somewhere else. I think it's a fairly well established fact that people don't want to learn anything new if they can help it, and learning to use Email as effectively as fax does take a while. (If you don't believe me, try mailing a binary image from a uucp node to someone on BITNET.) Granted, this is nothing inherently wrong with Email; one could certainly write a nice turnkey system to do very friendly Emailing. BUT, such a system doesn't currently exist. As long as the user has to worry about what to send (or have his computer send) at a "login:" prompt, Email won't be as popular as fax. --- " !" - Marcel Marceau Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st koreth@ebay.sun.com ...!sun!ebay!koreth
nick@toro.UUCP (Nicholas Jacobs) (12/20/89)
In article <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) writes: >So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't >those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world >how much better it really is?? > > bill gunshannon > 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET I think that we are coming back to the old bugaboo of user education. Obviously anyone who participates in this newsgroup is many orders of magnitude more computer literate than your average corporate user. So unfortunately, until email is as easy to use as a telephone, many people will not either not bother or in some cases actually go out of their way to avoid learning all together. I think that rather than complain about why can't Johnny Corporate learn to use computers, why not build fax machines that know how to send faxes to computers. That way, people who prefer to use faxes can and those of us who know and love our email will be happy too. Also, faxes are still cheaper with respect to initial purchase than computers, but particularly in the case of support, maintenance, and education. These are obviously important to companies who must maintain a bottom-line profitabity to satisfy their stock-holders. Just my $0.02, Nicholas Jacobs +-----------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+ | UUCP: uunet!toro!nick | Internet: nick@toro.uu.net | AT&T: (212) 236-3230 | +-----------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+ "Disclaimer? The legal fees are probably more than my annual salary..."
peter%infidel@LANL.GOV (12/20/89)
Bill, I have to disagree with your analysis of the Fax/Email issue. It is not an issue of "PR", it is an issue of packaging and standardization. While I agree that everything can be done by a PC, and it can be done better, the packaging of a FAX unit is incredible. Scanner, modem, software (not so soft) all wrapped up in a tidy package, driving the cost of manufacture down, and reducing the skills needed to operate the beast down to dialing a phone and inserting paper into a xerox machine. Skills most people already have. Also keep in mind that most people do not have a computer, but they do have a phone jack. For the average person or small business it is going to be cheaper (in terms of immediate $$s and things to learn) to get a Fax unit. Faxes also are amazingly standardized, this will take a while to accomplish in the arena of Email. The computer industry is continually threatening to switch to X.blah-dee-blah, and you know they will not be happy there. It is an industry hopelessly caught up in the grass is always greener syndrome. People want to buy something now and use it now. I suspect that most people do not want to keep up with the EMERGING (ahhh, It's Alive !?!) standards. Yours by email, Peter Ford Center for Nonlinear Studies Los Alamos National Labs P.S. I have never sent anything by Fax.
dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) (12/20/89)
Well, one point that I haven't seen here yet is that Fax can send arbitrary information where electronic mail, in its current state, is pretty much limited to text. If Joe Shmoe, corporate executive, wants to send an idea somewhere for comment and he's got sketches and notes, should he take a couple hours to type it in and convert the figures to pic or PostScript, or should he Fax the original? I know what I'd do... Fax can do everything e-mail can do (given that all parties have Fax machines), but e-mail can't do everything that Fax can. Of course they'll use Fax machines! This is surprising? There's something wrong with this? -- +-DLS (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)
oleary@umd5.umd.edu (dave o'leary) (12/20/89)
In article <6042@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes: > > Well, one point that I haven't seen here yet is that Fax can send >arbitrary information where electronic mail, in its current state, is pretty >much limited to text. The problem with FAX is that it is by definition, a facsimile of a document. I agree that the current state is not all it could be, that user interfaces need to be improved so Joe Shmoe, corporate exec, etc. can use it as easily as FAX. I see in the long run (2 yrs? 5 yrs? who knows?) the concept of FAX will be eclipsed by what we might call electronic mail - it is really just a matter of communication between two (or more) people. When I send information to you, I want you to have the information that I send in a manner that you can easily interpret. Unfortunately the best we can do today (generally available/accessible/usuable by said Joe Schmoe) is text transfer by email (which isn't too great) or FAX, which of course also has its limitations. >If Joe Shmoe, corporate executive, wants to send an idea somewhere >for comment and he's got sketches and notes, should he take a couple hours >to type it in and convert the figures to pic or PostScript, or should he >Fax the original? I know what I'd do... >Fax can do everything e-mail can do (given that all parties have >Fax machines), but e-mail can't do everything that Fax can. Of course they'll >use Fax machines! This is surprising? There's something wrong with this? >-- > +-DLS (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) It is not clear that FAX "can do everything email can do" - FAX can do some basic things in a much more user friendly manner. Email *can* do everything that FAX can do (well, I can't think of anything off the top of my head, and I may not be aware of some state of the art new development in FAX) but the interface to mail isn't as good. At least, the good ones aren't generally available, and the *standrards* (that word again) aren't together yet either. Sorry about the rambling. dave
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)
In article <NELSON.89Dec19094003@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > In practice, there is no standardization in E-mail packages. Bingo. Just standardise. No reason to glom an Email box onto a FAX box. Just sell a cheap modem with (say) 64K of RAM and a serial port, and let people use it as an Email answering machine. I have such a beast. Its got one problem: the user interface sucks. It sits between your existing modem and your PC and hides, which is fine, but you can't use it while it's waiting for messages, and you can't put messages into it (either for store-and-forward or for replies). Good idea, poor implementation. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) (12/20/89)
In article <5803@umd5.umd.edu>, oleary@umd5.umd.edu (dave o'leary) writes: > FAX will be eclipsed by what we might call electronic mail - it is really > just a matter of communication between two (or more) people. I agree. Part of that eclipse will have to be the ability to include a copy of a physical document (bitmaps), generated graphics, sound and just plain old arbitrary binary data in "electronic mail," which isn't at all what we commonly call "electronic mail" today. It's the general problem of multimedia documents in an electronic form. > but the interface to mail isn't as good. The biggest problem with the interface is that it doesn't include a Fax interface... :-) Or a sound interface. I mean, that's really the key difference; if I have a physical document I want someone else to see, *I* shouldn't have to translate that into an electronic form, even if I *can*. That's what Fax does that e-mail does not. As long as there is no standard for sending sound, graphic or binary data via long haul networks *conveniently*, there will be a need for more than e-mail. And it should not surprise anyone that people prefer the convenience of Fax over the current limitations of e-mail. And the broader question: Why have a separate voice network? Why have Fax-over-phone-lines? Why NOT have a single large-scale, (very) high-bandwidth network that can handle any kind of data you want with universal addressability? -- +-DLS (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)
kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) (12/20/89)
In article <NELSON.89Dec19094003@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > >The way to market E-mail is to glom it onto a FAX machine. Make a >little box that you plug in between your FAX machine and the phone >line. Give it enough smarts so that it can distinguish between its >carrier and the FAX machines, and automatically forward the call to >the FAX machine. Put some RAM in it so it can hold incoming messages. >Put a RS-232 (ugh) line on it so a computer can read its output. >Write some software for the PC and Mac that downloads the messages >from the little box. >-- This is interesting. What *is* the right way to market e-mail? In the national research and education internet market, the way to sell e-mail is to sell the network (NSFnet, ARPAnet, whatever). e-mail is a "free" service that comes with the (subsidized and exclusive) network. The network comes first and stands in the way, if you can't join. In the commercial arena, services like CompuServe set up information servers that provide e-mail, conferences, news, etc. e-mail is a mainframe-based service to allow subscribers to converse with each other. Lately, the proliferation of various commercial information services has led to the need to interconnect the various commercial systems together as an afterthought driven by the subscribers' desire for ubiquitous service and not as an integral part of the original service offering, as one might think. The information service comes first and stands in the way of e-mail which is an afterthought. Compare this to fax. With fax, you buy hardware from a vendor and use an existing network for connectivity. The fax hardware conforms to several well-established standards (for modem signalling, pixel placement, and page description). You subscribe to no service whatsoever, except the voice network service. You don't have to belong to an exclusive networking club like the national research and education club and you don't have to subscribe to some information service that provides mail forwarding and mailbox service like CompuServe, et al, as an afterthought. You just buy your box, plug it in and start dialing. I think there would be a market niche for e-mail if someone would offer an e-mail box like Russ Nelson describes. Of course, you have to have a PC to read and compose e-mail, but at least the network and the information service providers don't get in the way. Kent England, Boston University
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)
In article <6042@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes: > Fax can do everything e-mail can do (given that all parties have > Fax machines), but e-mail can't do everything that Fax can. Sorry, this is false. Show me how to FAX a program and I'll believe you. And of course you can always digitize your picture and send it as an attached file... and then the other guy can access it remotely. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
ak2@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com (Arthur Knapp) (12/20/89)
I think Vint Cerf correctly observed in one of his IEEE NETWORK columns that fax enjoys the advantage of using the addressing and connectivity of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Much as email does all of these neat things for me, the addressing and connectivity are not near that of the PSTN. Thus, I still have to send hard copy to the "rest" of the world. And still, I like having hard copy to "review and edit" rather than the paperless VDT review. Arthur Knapp ak2@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com Tel: 201-758-2198 Fax: 201-530-6875 331 Newman Springs Road, Rm 1F-359 Red Bank, NJ 07701-7020 USA Telex: 275318
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (12/20/89)
In article <NELSON.89Dec19094003@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > >In practice, there is no standardization in E-mail packages. You can get >one for free (Opus BBS), but it takes a good bit of tinkering to get it >working. > >The way to market E-mail is to glom it onto a FAX machine. Make a >little box that you plug in between your FAX machine and the phone >line. Give it enough smarts so that it can distinguish between its >carrier and the FAX machines, and automatically forward the call to >the FAX machine. Put some RAM in it so it can hold incoming messages. >Put a RS-232 (ugh) line on it so a computer can read its output. >Write some software for the PC and Mac that downloads the messages >from the little box. Or glom the fax onto your favourite PC. In my opinion one of the nicer DOS based fax packages is done by Intel with their Connection Co-Processor. It is a smart board which will send/receive fax/files in the background. With it you can send a fax, receive a fax, send a file to another pc with a CPP or receive a file from another pc with a CPP. Of course this all happens in the background, just like on a real os. They have a little email type thing which you can enter a list of people to send a message to. It looks up their phone numbers and sends the message either as a fax or if that person has a pc with CPP then as an ASCII file (it shows up at the other end as "email"). I think the advantage's of FAX are the simplicity and low cost of the transmission. Point to point using the low cost of long distance. The data networks "should be cheaper because packets can share a line" argument doesn't seem to follow through when you look at the rates. And value added email services which should be able to use bulk data transmission are also fairly expensive. FAX is popular because it's reliable, and inexpensive. For example in Vancouver law offices make a great deal of use of fax to send draft documents to other law offices a couple of blocks away because it's less expensive (essentially free) than a bicycle courier and faster. Any email system that you want to propose for their use will have to emulate this "feature" - essentially zero cost for operation for local use. Last time I checked about Envoy 100 (our local Telemail clone) they charged a fair bit for mail even if it was going to another person in the same building :-) Another advantage of fax is the simplicity of use. Dial the phone and the box does the rest. This has to be carried over to the replacement email package. You have to just give it a mail message or file to be transferred and have it delivered without any interaction by the user (except perhaps that he can't reset the machine for a few minutes). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
merlin@smu.uucp (David Hayes) (12/20/89)
Of course, we could just put a FAX card into our present computers. I have looked into this for my own purposes. The problem is not printing the received FAX messages, but sending them out. When I send a FAX message, I use FINE or SUPERFINE detail settings. This looks pretty good when it's received, even though its been through a digitizing process at the transmitting end. A computer- generated FAX does not go through the digitizing stage, so it can (in theory) look better when received. The basic lack, though, is in the software. A FAX message is a basic b/w or grayscale raster image of the input page. It's compressed before transmission. To send a computer generated FAX, you must convert your document from whatever word processor format it is already in to the raster image. The software to do this is just not readily available yet. When it becomes available, then we may get somewhere. David Hayes School of Engineering Southern Methodist University merlin@smu.edu uunet!smu!merlin "Here's a test to see if your job here on Earth is finished: If you're still here, it isn't." -- Richard Bach, _Illusions_
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (12/20/89)
In article <7367@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <6042@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes: }> Fax can do everything e-mail can do (given that all parties have }> Fax machines), but e-mail can't do everything that Fax can. } }Sorry, this is false. Show me how to FAX a program and I'll believe you. }And of course you can always digitize your picture and send it as an }attached file... and then the other guy can access it remotely. }-- }`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. } 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. }"It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier }and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com The EIA is sponsoring various committee's to look at extensions to the CCITT Fax standards. Including one for File Transfer between computers equipped with V.29 fax style modems. Various fax board manufacturers already have proprietary protocols that allow you to transfer files between two pc's as long as you have one of their boards at each end. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (12/20/89)
A reminder to usenet readers of comp.protocols.tcp-ip that there is an existing newsgroup, alt.fax, which is dedicated for better or for worse to discussions of fax technology and applications. obl. tcp-ip-relevant comment: There's work being done at several CICnet schools to use internet links as transport for fax messages. The underlying tcp technology is FTP as you might expect. A recent announcement of fax tools was recently reposted by yrs truly to comp.archives so if you skim through that you should be able to find it pretty quickly. I know there's an RFC that addresses a standard format for storing an ascii representation of fax images written back in the olden days when the US Post Office was going to offer the service. --Ed
WANCHO@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL ("Frank J. Wancho") (12/20/89)
To send a computer generated FAX, you must convert your document
from whatever word processor format it is already in to the raster
image. The software to do this is just not readily available yet.
Well, most word processors are capable of producing PostScript output
files. These files can, in turn, be sent through HiJack-PS and out a
FAX interface...
When it becomes available, then we may get somewhere.
Where are we going?
--Frankloverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) (12/20/89)
In article <5803@umd5.umd.edu> oleary@umd5.umd.edu (dave o'leary) writes: > In article <6042@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes: > > Well, one point that I haven't seen here yet is that Fax can send > >arbitrary information where electronic mail, in its current state, is pretty > >much limited to text. > > The problem with FAX is that it is by definition, a facsimile of a document. But, that's why its such a hit! An analogy I'm reminded of is with the original Xerox copier. It was originally touted as a replacement for carbon paper - simply type a single copy and duplicate it. Sales floundered until it was retargetted to the duplicating of pre-existing documents; this started the copier revolution and an industry. I see `email' (I dislike that term) being the copier-replacing-carbon-paper; the FAX has come along and started a revolution. There's just no (current) easy way to get a signed document from here to there using email, without extra hardware (over any "standard" PC) and a better user interfaces, etc. Personally, I find FAXing a pain and couldn't live without mail. John
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (12/20/89)
In article <100@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In my opinion one of the nicer DOS based fax packages is done by Intel with >their Connection Co-Processor. It is a smart board which will send/receive >fax/files in the background. With it you can send a fax, receive a fax, send >a file to another pc with a CPP or receive a file from another pc with a >CPP. Of course this all happens in the background, just like on a real os. The idea behind the connection coprocessor was great. Unfortunately, while Intel released the specs to software vendors, so you could send messages from within software, they made it difficult for hardware vendors to get specs. This meant that you could only do this if both you and the destination had Intel boards. So it hasn't been very successful. Also, some people haven't been thrilled with the technical specs of the Intel board; I'll think about it and try to remember what they've said.
cire@CISCO.COM (cire|eric) (12/20/89)
It'll be especially interesting when MAN systems being discussed by Bell Core and AT&T start coming on line. This will effectively tie LANs into the Central Offices. Interesting possibilities. -c
haverty@BBN.COM (Jack Haverty) (12/20/89)
Marshall et al, I agree wholeheartedly with your reasons: >Reason 1: FAX is turn-key in every aspect: any office person can > install and use a fax machine without any serious training. > > >Reason 2: FAX uses an already existing, global infrastructure. > and I'd like to add one which has been especially frustrating lately: Reason 3: FAX is able to carry almost anything that can be put on paper (at least in black&white) I keep having experiences which I'm sure are pretty common among people who use Email and Fax, for example: I have a computer on my desk, connected to the Internet, and I know how to use it; therefore reasons #1 and #2 are less of a problem for me personally. Last month I wanted to send a draft copy of a report to a colleague on the West Coast for review and comment. The report of course has some graphs, diagrams, etc. in it. She also has a computer, and is on the Internet; in fact we both have Macintosh'es, which should make it a piece of cake. 1/ I "BINHEXed" up my report so it could get through the mail system; this of course is far more arcane and complex a task than you'd like to inflict on a computer-naive user. Then I sent that result via e-mail. [Note: if you try this without verifying a priori that the recipient will be able to deal with it, you run the risk of intense reactions, invectives, speculations about your sanity and genetic background, and the like. It's even better than ICMP pinging to test if a remote site is alive. Take it from one who knows.....] 2/ My colleague reported back that the message arrived, and she successfully decoded it from BINHEX into a file. Unfortunately, I had prepared it using Microsoft Word 4.0, and she was using 3.0 (at least we were using the same brand of word processor). 3/ I went back to the word processor, and output a file in "3.0" format; fortunately the program provides this capability. I BINHEXed it, and sent it off again. 4/ My colleague reported back that the message arrived, decoded properly, and she could read it into her PC. Unfortunately, the FONTs that I had in my machine included some that she did not have, so that the report was unintelligible. 5/ So much for standards... Plan B took over. I once again fired up the word processor, and created a PostScript output file. This involves unearthing the book of folklore and finding the right magic incantation, which involves a combination of keystrokes and timing that guarantees that only wizards will be able to perform the rite. Another round of BINHEXing, and off it goes in the mail again. 6/ My colleague reported back that it all decoded, and she had successfully sent it to the local printer. Several pages of the document came out, and then a page which said something about stack overflow and offensive commands. PostScript-related error messages seem to me to be competitive with error reports I see from various electronic mail systems in terms of incomprehensibility and uselessness - i.e., giving the recipient some hint of what to do about the problem. Not seeing any obvious place to sacrifice a goat, ... 7/ I took my paper copy of the report, walked down the hall to the FAX machine, and sent it. She had it in her hands 30 minutes later. Assuming my experience is not a fluke, does anyone wonder why mere mortals might use FAX instead of e-mail? As one of the players in e-mail in the 70s (historians see RFCs in the early 700s), it's a little saddening to see the state of "user-friendliness" that has persisted for the last 15 years. For the non-technical world, E-mail provides a capability somewhat akin to TELEX and Telegrams - the ability to send a text-only message electronically, assisted by a wizard who will help to figure out the proper string of magic characters needed to specify the recipient properly. Anything beyond that is too hard for most users, except where specific custom software packages which go beyond the standards have been created and are used within a community of such users. FAX provides a fundamentally different service. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that a synergy between FAX and E-mail has the potential for a great advance in the utility of both. Jack
jhm+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Jim Morris) (12/20/89)
Here is an earlier reply to John's messsage -- back when it was just a
bb post on USENet's telcom.
Generally, I agree with Marshal Rose and, especially, Russ Nelson.
Bill Gunshannon: Wake up and smell the thermal paper! :-)
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
X-Andrew-Authenticated-As: 28;andrew.cmu.edu;Jim Morris
Received: from
Messages.7.10.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.foo.expres.cs.cmu.edu.rt.r3
via MS.5.6.foo.expres.cs.cmu.edu.rt_r3;
Wed, 27 Sep 89 12:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <cZ8DBfy00hl=4BoPpw@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 12:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Morris <jhm+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 4368+1
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
CC: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
I think John's message was very important -- a sort of wake-up call for
the computer community.
> Excerpts from internet.telecom: 18-Aug-89 Networks Considered Harmful..
> John McCarthy@sail.stanf (9146)
> However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it
> will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages
> over telefax.
I believe email will be supplanted by FAX -- period. We will eventually
end up with a hybrid, but it will be achieved by the FAX business
assimilating all the knowledge we have about email.
> These advantages include the fact that information is
> transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images.
> Group IV compression brings the image vs. ASCII ratio down to about 5.
> Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
FAX store and forward services like MCI's and AT&T' s will provide this.
> Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
> filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
OCR can work for the searching part. 99% character recognition rates
are common. There are already products available that scan, recognize,
and index documents for you. The key idea is that the image is saved
too, so there is no danger of the 1% missed characters causing problems
other than missed retrieval.
As for editing, very often one wants only to annotate another document.
This can be done on the image. If one really wants to edit a document,
OCR plus some hand massaging may suffice.
> The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email is separated
> from special networks is that telefax works by using the existing telephone
> network directly.
Yes!!!
> Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and can be
> overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted documents can be
> transmitted. However, this loses the ability to edit the document.
This can
> be beaten by email, provided there arises a widely used standard for
> representing documents that preserves editability.
This is a very big proviso. There is great chaos in this area right now.
The standard proposed by CCITT, called Office Document Architecture
(ODA), is getting very little support in the US where the DoD seems to
be promoting SGML and the commercial document editor vendors are
promoting their own proprietary standards. MicroSoft's Rich Text Format
(RTF) seems most promising since it is used by more than one document
processor. Another hope is that a single vendor, e.g. DEC with it's
ODA-related DDIF and DECWrite (=Framemaker), will become the market
leader and establish a de facto standard, as Lotus did for spread sheets.
A much more likely development is that PostScript becomes the exchange
standard. It is there. All document processors will produce it. It looks
a little nicer than FAX, and there is at least a fighting chance that
one can translate it back into a particular document processor's
internal format.
Another advantage of FAX you failed to emphasize is simply that it deals
with pictures effortlessly. Even if you and I have precisely the same
computing equipment and are on the ArpaNet, the fastest way for me to
get a picture to you is FAX. This is true even if the picture is hand
drawn -- drawing it on paper is faster than any drawing editor I've ever
used.
> Fortunately, there is free enterprise. Therefore, the most likely way
> of getting direct electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of
> hardware as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting
> to the current variety of local area networks (LANs). The most likely
way for
> this to be accomplished is for the makers of fax machines to offer ASCII
> service as well.
An AppleFAX modem will already do this for Apple PICT files. I would
like to see Adobe do the same for PostScript files.
> This will obviate the growing practice of some users of fax
> of printing out their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
> whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them back into
> computer form.
Why should this practice be obviated? Why not work at making OCR more
effective? In a race between clever computer hackers trying to make OCR
better and institutional politicians trying to straighten out the
standards who do you think will win? Which would you rather be?
Jim.Morris@andrew.cmu.edu
412 268-2574
FAX: 412 681-2066
[An Andrew ToolKit view (a raster image) was included here, but could
not be displayed.]PETEHIC@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Pete Hickey) (12/20/89)
How do FAX newsgroups (such as this one) work? Do they need a moderator? :-) -pete
haverty@BBN.COM (Jack Haverty) (12/21/89)
When I said in the message I few hours ago: "PostScript-related error messages seem to me to be competitive with error reports I see from various electronic mail systems in terms of incomprehensibility and uselessness", I didn't anticipate that I'd see the following incomprehensible reply by some mail system (at least I assume that's who "Revised List Processor" is) attempting to establish its supremacy: ----- received in response to my previous message to tcp-ip ---- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 14:46:22 EST From: Revised List Processor (1.6c) <LISTSERV%POLYGRAF@graf.poly.edu> Subject: Ack: Re: Networks considered harmful To: Jack Haverty <haverty@BBN.COM> Statistics for TCP-IP mailing (TCP-IP Redistribution List): -> Only local users and domain-style recipients on the list.
kasten@interlan.interlan.COM (Frank Kastenholz) (12/21/89)
> How do FAX newsgroups (such as this one) work? Do they need > a moderator? :-) > -pete Actually, they use a distributed moderator scheme. I send my news to two friends, they each send it to two friends and so on and so on. During the events in Tienanmen Square in Beijing during and after the siege by the PLA the students would send a fax to a friend in a friendly country who would then distribute it. If more reliability is needed, you get redundant friends.... Cheers Frank Kastenholz Racal Interlan
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (12/21/89)
In article <9153@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: }In article <100@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: }The idea behind the connection coprocessor was great. Unfortunately, }while Intel released the specs to software vendors, so you could send }messages from within software, they made it difficult for hardware }vendors to get specs. This meant that you could only do this if both }you and the destination had Intel boards. So it hasn't been very }successful. Also, some people haven't been thrilled with the }technical specs of the Intel board; I'll think about it and try to }remember what they've said. Yes, the EIA committee's looking at an FTP spec are apparently not looking at the Intel spec's. I was just pointing to what I think is an interesting integration of the functions at the user level. I call it push button data communications. In other words, supply a file name and a phone number; the computer does the rest while you get onto other things. We've had it in Unix for a while. Except that with Unix your system administrator has to pre-configure the network software to be able to connect properly. With the fax based systems, you can deal with other systems, just with a phone number. No setup required (except that you might need tell your software whether to expect a real fax machine at the other end, or a smart pc based fax system). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
postel@VENERA.ISI.EDU (12/21/89)
Hmm. Can someone explain how we could have this discussion of FAX vs E-Mail via FAX? What is the scenario for my having recieved all the contributions to date and sent this message to you all? --jon.
romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us (John Romkey) (12/21/89)
Something I like about email is that I can email a request to SRI-NIC and find out WHOIS information and also retrieve RFC's that way. I can't currently do this with FAX. I agree that the general user interfaces to email need a LOT of work to be made more usable. This is generally true about TCP/IP-based applications, though. - john romkey USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: romkey@ftp.com WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BUDDHA!
jtk@lakesys.lakesys.com (Joe Klein) (12/21/89)
In article <22979.630044353@cheetah.nyser.net> tcp-ip@nic.ddn.mil writes: >What is great about FAX is really simple: > >Reason 1: FAX is turn-key in every aspect: any office person can > install and use a fax machine without any serious training. ... >Reason 2: FAX uses an already existing, global infrastructure. ... >Summary: FAX is a wonderful example of an 80-year old technology that > is technically indefensible but has the world's best > user interface: no training needed. ... >Having said all that, how can e-mail start competing? Well, marketing >is a small part, but it's a second-order thing. We need: a global, >e-mail infrastructure that is as ubiquitous as dial tone. To do this, >we need to patch together all of the existing e-mail systems, make the >gatewaying transparent, adopt a global addressing scheme, and then start >making the technology accessible and usable by ordinary people who had >normal childhoods. > >/mtr A freely distributed e-mail interface with a nice GUI would help. Perhaps ELM with a PM/Motif interface. It would be nice to draft a standard for encapsulating FAX bitmaps as well as other graphic formats. A freeware conversion of e-mail to FAX would be nice. Proposed e-mail fixes. 1. FAX <=> e-mail gateways. 2. Develop a global addressing scheme. 3. Develop a simple user interface. 4. Intergrate graphics, (voice?, vidio???) etc. Can't be that hard. -- jtk@lakesys.lakesys.com : "I'm not a nun, Joseph T. Klein : we all know that." "No mom, that's UNIX not eunichs. : - Cher
steve@CISE.CISE.NSF.GOV (Stephen Wolff) (12/21/89)
> Why have a separate voice network? Why have Fax-over-phone-lines? > Why NOT have a single large-scale, (very) high-bandwidth network that can > handle any kind of data you want with universal addressability? We're woikin' on it.
simpson@SATURN.IND.TRW.COM (Scott Simpson) (12/22/89)
Anybody who has the X distribution can play with multimedia mail. Try compiling the Andrew Toolkit. It has multiple fonts, graphics and animation. I don't know if it can handle bit maps. This has one advantage over fax: it understands the structure of the document. -- Scott Simpson TRW Information Networks Division simpson@trwind.trw.com
sean@dranet.dra.com (12/22/89)
In article <8912202301.AA05357@asylum.sf.ca.us>, romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us (John Romkey) writes: > Something I like about email is that I can email a request to SRI-NIC > and find out WHOIS information and also retrieve RFC's that way. I > can't currently do this with FAX. Several companies are now selling "FAX-servers." The most common work by you calling a number, select the information and it is FAXed to you. The technology is similar to the Dial-A-Tape services (Heck, even the IRS has been using that for a couple of years). The "inexpensive" ones are a PC, FAX modem, and Voice/DTMF module. Maybe SRI-NIC should start providing this service as a way for the rest of us to get a hold of those dang Postscript RFC's :-). -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@dranet.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 Affiliation given for purposes of identification, not representation
PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky) (12/22/89)
Hmmm, indeed.
It must be that "FAX" is so much better than "e-mail" that they don't need
to discuss its superiority.
Actually, when it comes to Content, instead of Form (on which I think the
commercial success of FAX is largely based), there does seem to be _one_
advantage to the inherently limited, point-to-point medium: at least you have
to write things down before Faxification, and when you do a first draft you
sometimes notice that a second draft is called for. Netmail, as I've
been saying for years and years (see RFCs with even lower numbers than
Jack Haverty's), does tend to make shooting from the metaphorical hip
rather too easy, on the other metaphorical hand.
cheers, map
-------campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (12/22/89)
In article <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) writes:
-But the truth is, FAX offers nothing that can't be done with the PC sitting
-on your desk. And the PC can even do it better. You can send Email from
-PC to PC or PC to "Real computer" or "Real computer" to PC. The softtware
-and hardware already exist. In fact they have been around for years.
-The hardware we all have and the software doesn't even cost anything!!!
Complete hogwash. Let me demolish this nonsense point by point:
(1) "FAX offers nothing that can't be done with the PC sitting on your desk"
Most people DON'T HAVE PCs sitting on their desk. OK, fine, IF you have
a PC, AND a modem and telephone line, AND some software that you know how
to configure and use... but you've now eliminated 90% of the average adult
population.
(2) "The PC can do it better"
Well, maybe. IF the PC has a scanner, and a laser printer (gotta be able
to send hand-scribbled notes, newspaper articles with marginal commentary,
etc.), and a modem, and the right software, etc. etc.
(3) "The software doesn't even cost anything"
This is just plain stupid. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Even if you get public domain software, SOMEONE has to configure it,
install it, fix it when it breaks, and upgrade it when external conditions
change. None of this is free. It costs REAL MONEY.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!!
-You can send text, you can send pictures, you can even send color pictures.
Yeah, right. How do I send pictures over MCI Mail? CompuServe? Sure,
if you, the recipient, and I, the sender, have a prior arrangement about what
picture file format to use, and are we using uuencode or atob, etc. etc.
It's stupid to expect normal (non-technoid) humans to put up with that crap.
-And you can do it the same way you do with a FAX. You can call the addressee
-on the phone and send it to him directly. As a matter of fact it has probably
-reached the point where you can buy all the hardware necessary to do this for
-about the same price as one of those full featured FAX machines.
Oh, come on. Let's talk real machines, not low-ball clones, because low-ball
clones have no support; Joe Businessman has no time to waste on tracking
down bugs in his hardware. He just wants it to work, yesterday. So let's
assume a 286-based machine with hard disk and some memory, maybe $2,000
for a decent one. Scanner, $1,000. Laser printer, $2,000. High-speed
modem, $500. Software, $500 (this estimate probably low). We're up to
$7,000 now. Last I looked, decent FAX machines sold for one TENTH this price.
-Interestingly enough, the Email scenario has numerous advantages over the
-FAX scenario. I can move more data quicker. I can manipulate the data
-easier when it arrives. And if the number is busy, I don't have to stand
-around and wait. The PC can do it for me.
Fine. Most people don't WANT to manipulate the data. They just want to
get a page from point A to point B. If they get tired of busy signals,
they use a FAX service bureau.
-So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't
-those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world
-how much better it really is??
Because Email sucks. Look, I'm *in the Email business*, and I still think
it sucks. Before we're going to get anyone other than techno-geeks to use
Email, we need (1) UNIVERSAL connectivity, and (2) REAL ease of use. Folks,
we're still a LONG way from that goal, and FAX has beaten us to it. The
advantages of Email (which I do recognize) just don't matter to 90% of FAX
users.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/23/89)
As an information services provider (ahem) the first problem that
comes to mind with an e-mail box (similar to a fax box) is that once
you start commercializing like that all the non-profit nets will start
reading you the riot act.
To make this happen the first thing that would be needed would be a
clear policy regarding gatewaying mail into and thru networks like
NSFNET. Some quid pro quo that the community was comfortable with
would be a good place to start discussions. Eventually I'd assume
mutual exchange of mail would be sufficient since that services both
parties, but at first that's going to seem like too small a quid (or
is it a quo?)
The other model, where one just starts hawking such a box is an ok
idea and seems to make sense in the abstract, but I know I wouldn't be
interested and I suspect only a few fortune 500 companies would be,
ATT perhaps. The reason is that such an investment, a grassroots
attempt to build your own private e-mail-box network, would probably
take 5-10 years to be profitable. Faxes started like this but the
service was a little more tangible.
You could hook up two offices with faxes in the beginning and it was
enough to justify the boxes even if there weren't a lot of other faxes
out there to talk to, I suspect e-mail has a higher critical threshold
of utility.
More importantly, if it just hooks up two offices there are a zillion
other choices to do about the same thing as far as a (presumably
conservative and not fascinated with techno-toys) business or
administrative person is concerned. Telephones and those little pink
"while you were out" slips come to mind as do voice mail, fax, random
PC e-mail products, backdoors to research nets etc.
Just like a phone system, the real value is not being able to send a
few words from here to there, it's the security blanket of general
connectivity, knowing that the *next* person you need to speak to is
probably reachable via this medium. That's what I mean by a "critical
threshold of utility", a term I just made up. Perhaps "critical
threshold of perceived utility" would be better.
Another (almost) missing piece in the picture involves exploiting the
real advantages of e-mail over these other mediums, such as being able
to group and save/retrieve threads of conversations. For example, any
of us might be managing a dozen projects (some we might not call
projects, like office supplies, but it's still a separate thread.)
Rather than being blasted (as most of us are) with "You have 34 new
messages" every morning you need something that probably doesn't even
look like e-mail, some tagged message system which can be configured
to reflect the groups you break up your world into (sets of people,
sets of project tags, priorities, etc.)
This is the whole "groupware" thing in a nutshell. I've worked with
some executive consultant types on this kind of thing. They knew
nothing really about e-mail etc (one used MCI Mail) but they did have
some vision of what they think their customers wanted. It came down to
basically what I just described, something to structure
communications, commitments, assignments etc. Just passing more
verbiage about is actually a turn-off to a lot of people, present
company excepted.
E-mail is just a means towards that end, a utility not unlike phones,
but as has been said before (usually credited to Bill Joy), if a new
development doesn't represent an order of magnitude improvement then
it's probably not worth the effort of adapting to 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!bzsCSYSMAS@OAC.UCLA.EDU (Michael Stein) (12/23/89)
> I think Vint Cerf correctly observed in one of his IEEE NETWORK > columns that fax enjoys the advantage of using the addressing > and connectivity of the public switched telephone network > (PSTN). Much as email does all of these And still, I like > having hard copy to "review and edit" rather than the paperl I guess I need this explained to me :-) Every FAX I've received has my name on it or else I wouldn't get it... FAX uses HUMAN readable addresses.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (12/24/89)
In article <8912210003.AA02652@bel.isi.edu> postel@VENERA.ISI.EDU writes: > >Hmm. > >Can someone explain how we could have this discussion of FAX vs E-Mail via >FAX? What is the scenario for my having recieved all the contributions to >date and sent this message to you all? > Are you trying to point out that the News system (as sort of an extension of the mail system) is doing something that would be more difficult by FAX? I would tend to agree with you on that point. However to possibly clarify some of my suggestions. What I would like to see is extensions to the FAX standards that would allow FTP between two systems that have FAX modems. (I.e. V.29/V.27 technology, suitable for sending a fax from your system to a Real(tm) Fax Machine. ) Once you have FTP you could see articles arriving at your machine that have Path lines like: Path: yoursite!somesite!backbone!van-bc!1-604-555-1212!slpc From: stuart@1-604-555-1212 In other words the computer called slpc run's a news system. A user on that system posted an article. It was sent via an FTP process to van-bc by dialing up van-bc's fax line. During the call setup phase van-bc and slpc agreed to allow slpc to transfer a file from slpc to van-bc, and have it run as input to rnews. Specifically we have replaced uucp's uux command with something like (assuming 555-2222 is van-bc's fax number): faxexecute 555-2222!rnews newsarticle The "advantage" being that the fax subsystem doesn't require a Systems file containing a chat script to get into the remote system. Just a phone number. The two systems will decide what modulation schemes, baud rates, protocols, encodings, work to do, etc; after they connect using the T.30 specifications (extended to allow things like FTP). You should also be able to send mail back to the orignator by sending mail to: mail stuart@1-604-555-1212 mailmessage Now if your system has aforementioned fax modem, your system just dials the number and it and slpc decide whether or not it will allow your system to deliver email to it (using the fax FTP protocol again). Of course if you don't have that type of technology you can send it to a gateway machine (for example van-bc): mail van-bc!1-604-555-1212!stuart mailmessage Presumably sendmail/smail3 etc can be setup to do this for you. The important thing about *all* of the above is that at *no* time are we using the fax standards in their current form. I.e. rendering the message to a bitmap and transferring that. Just the modem technology, and the call setup technology. Also note that with appropriate software a mail message like the above *could* get delivered as a rendered bitmap if the sending machine discovered during call setup that the destination *was* a Real(tm) Fax Machine. But that the faxexecute request would fail (Error: fax machine can't unbatch news). The hoped for end result is simpler point to point email using the PSTN. I can send email to you without prior arrangement if you have either a fax machine or a computer system equipped with fax modem (and appropriate software). And that I think was the original idea behind the JMC article in CACM. We must remove the requirement email has for going through special networks or it will be supplanted by fax. NB I'm suggesting RFC-822 type messages for this type of use. Others might prefer Fido type messages. Or even worse X.400. I suppose as part of the call setup two systems can start by asking for X.400, and then falling back to RFC-822 or Fido, and then down to a rendered bitmap. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax) -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/26/89)
In article <0ZXtO8S00hl=APvn1Y@andrew.cmu.edu> jhm+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Jim Morris) writes:
<Here is an earlier reply to John's messsage -- back when it was just a
<bb post on USENet's telcom.
<From: Jim Morris <jhm+@andrew.cmu.edu>
<> These advantages include the fact that information is
<> transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images.
<> Group IV compression brings the image vs. ASCII ratio down to about 5.
Does this take into account the fact that ASCII data streams can be
easily and quickly compressed, also.
<> Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
<> filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
<OCR can work for the searching part. 99% character recognition rates
<are common. There are already products available that scan, recognize,
<and index documents for you. The key idea is that the image is saved
<too, so there is no danger of the 1% missed characters causing problems
<other than missed retrieval.
I would very much like to hear specifics of anyone getting 99%
character recognition of transmitted facsimiles on a regular basis.
What are the costs in time and money of this sort of efficiency?
<Jim.Morris@andrew.cmu.edu
/craigpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/26/89)
In article <8912230541.AA07763@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> haverty@BBN.COM (Jack Haverty) writes: > Assuming my experience is not a fluke, I think it's a fluke. Using the Mac you could have had the same problem taking the data down the hall, or over a LAN. Why? Because the Mac has never produced any strong file-format standards. I don't know why, what with Apple pushing for standards everywhere else in the machine. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/26/89)
In article <8912221738.AA09309@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > You could hook up two offices with faxes in the beginning and it was > enough to justify the boxes even if there weren't a lot of other faxes > out there to talk to, I suspect e-mail has a higher critical threshold > of utility. That's why I'm arguing for an email standard built around UUCP. It already uses the PSTN. The only problem with UUCP is that the destination phone number is hard coded into the system... you can't casually send a message to 7134385018, but you can put that in your system file and send a message to sugar.hackercorp.com. The other problem is customising the chat script. That needs to be standardised (login email password email), and gettys that need weird things like BREAK to lock baud rate need to be fixed. That's largely been done. Then you can say "now your salesemen out in the feild can call in and get their mail at odd hours... and automatically provide a phone number they can be reached...". Bingo... an application of immediate utility to many middling to large businesses. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/27/89)
Re: fax newsgroups/discussions
There are "intelligencers" which you can buy and are distributed by
fax. A few times a day sheets will pop out of your fax with selected
bits of timely news and analysis. I have no idea what these cost (I
don't even remember the names of the services, but I have stood at a
fax machine reading them.)
That's a one-way medium but I don't know of any similar services on
the Internet (I guess it would be forbidden on this network since it
would be a commercial service.) Perhaps analogous services exist on
commercial e-mail nets?
Do the people in this discussion actually feel like they know *what*
goes on on the commercial e-mail nets besides simple messaging? If
someone does know perhaps you could make a quick list of activities
that might be interesting and send it to this group.
-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!bzsMAP@LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael A. Patton) (12/27/89)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 10:01 PST From: Michael Stein <CSYSMAS@oac.ucla.edu> Every FAX I've received has my name on it or else I wouldn't get it... FAX uses HUMAN readable addresses. But the problem is the ones I haven't received! My FAX number is shared by about 300 individuals. The people who run it report several FAXes a day without proper delivery info. They usually hang on to it a while if the person was expecting it and comes by they may be able to claim it by looking at it. People are starting to get better at it, but the addressing is still in the "body" rather than on the "envelope" as E-Mail does.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/27/89)
In article <8912221738.AA09309@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > As an information services provider (ahem) the first problem that > comes to mind with an e-mail box (similar to a fax box) is that once > you start commercializing like that all the non-profit nets will start > reading you the riot act. I seriously doubt it. All an email box is is a modem++. After the way Usenet has absorbed all the Fido crossfeeds with a minimum of indigestion, a little more Email won't even be noticed. Not to mention that the majority of activity would be point-to-point over phone lines outside the internet. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/27/89)
In article <117@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > Path: yoursite!somesite!backbone!van-bc!1-604-555-1212!slpc > From: stuart@1-604-555-1212 > faxexecute 555-2222!rnews newsarticle > The "advantage" being that the fax subsystem doesn't require a Systems file This "advantage" of FAX doesn't require FAX. In fact it would be MUCH easier to just modify UUCP to support it than to invent Yet Another Point To Point File Passing Protocol... and one that needs a new (and at this date expensive) piece of hardware for most existing sites. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
cfe+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Craig F. Everhart") (12/28/89)
Yes, the Messages program that you get with the Andrew contribution to the X tape has bitmaps, too. Give it a try. Craig Everhart
CERF@A.ISI.EDU (01/01/90)
Michael, the FAX is sent from a source telephone to a destination telephone. Both identified by telephone numbers. The reason the fax reaches YOU is that somebody is nice enough to read the page and give it to you -0 or maybe you have the machine dedicated on your desk. That's fine, too. What's important as far as ease of use goes is that the primary thing the sender needs to know to reach you is just a telephone numer - and there are lots of ways to find that out (though I note that white pages is of no help here because people haven't begun listing their faxes in the white pages). Vint Cerf
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (01/02/90)
There's one other point about this Email vs FAX discussion which I haven't
seen mentioned:
You don't have to have a FAX machine on your desk to send or receive a FAX.
FAX machines are easily leveraged: our company has no more than one FAX
machine for every 40 staff members. This works because a "FAX address"
typically consists of not only a telephone number, but also a human-readable
name on the cover sheet.
Another point which makes this possible is that you don't have to be at the
FAX machine to compose a FAX. In fact, you don't need any fancier technology
than pencil and paper to compose a FAX.
These are important points for this discussion: I know that FAX has slowed
the use of Email in our division, for reasons including these. (As well
as the other various reasons which have been mentioned.) I say slowed
because Email is still in use, and possibly is increasing. In this
environment, Email is used for works-in-progress ("Groupware") and
store-and-forward file transfer. It's also used for conventional
conversation, but rarely among non-techies.
--
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/02/90)
In article <7161@drilex.UUCP> dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes: > There's one other point about this Email vs FAX discussion which I haven't > seen mentioned: > You don't have to have a FAX machine on your desk to send or receive a FAX. You don't have to have a modem on your desk to send or receive Email. You probably have a terminal on your desk (or near it) anyway. If you don't, then there's an advantage FAX has over Email. But lots of people do. Remember all those ads for FAX boards... "We don't see much of Joe any more". This discussion has little to do with TCP/IP any more. Followups directed to comp.mail.misc. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com