seifert@hammer.UUCP (05/21/86)
In article <3710@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >> software and discussions for other operating systems. Why can't they >> set up their own network? Disk space and phone lines aren't free for >> machines that run UNIX anymore than they are for machines that run >> mac/amiga/ST/PC-DOS/VMS/whatever. > >Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be >using Unix machines to communicate. My question is, "Since they have these other machines, why can't they use these other machines for discussions about these machines?" > If you're serious about limiting yourself to Unix discussions, > we need to kill everything else off except Unix, which would kill the net. That's not what I'm proposing at all. The (well-known) problem is, that the amount of traffic on usenet is getting completely out of hand. Too many resources are being consumed, and WE have to do something to fix this before the plug gets pulled on the whole net. There are a number of causes for the amount of traffic, including the growth in the number of sites, ignorant newusers making mistakes, bozos, problems with hardware and software, etc. What can we do to reduce the amount of traffic without reducing the usefulness of the net? - make the hardware and software more robust - educate newusers - kick abusers off the net (after several warnings) - go to moderated groups - put traffic for non-unix machines on those machines, making them carry their own weight. (since they can) - kill groups with high volume and very poor signal-to-noise ratios I don't really like the idea of having to go to moderated groups, since that creates a lot of work for the moderator (which would be unnecessary if only people would control themselves), and raises the possibility of censorship. But if well done, it could help increase the signal-to-noise ratio and lower the load on the net. I also don't like the idea of killing groups, but "those-in-charge" are doing it now (ala net.flame and net.bizzare). There is a problem with identifying which groups to kill, as one person's garbage is another's treasure. Having non-unix machines carry their own traffic seems like a very good way to reduce the load on the Unix machines without killing the traffic. It's fair, and it allows people who don't have access to a Unix machine to participate. I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
cem@intelca.UUCP (05/22/86)
[Sorry net.micro, I'll keep it short.] > > ... Lot's of stuff about how the net is failing and what to do about it > edited out. [Ed Note: Most of the suggestions are already implemented]... > > I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given > any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy Whereupon we come to the previous statement. Mr Seifert (aka snoopy) there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and apple machines it would have a good chance here). --Chuck McManis -- - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - {ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (05/23/86)
In article <2044@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: >In article <3710@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>> I don't see why UNIX machines should be expected to pay for distributing >>> software and discussions for other operating systems. ... >> >>Because there is a large base of users of those machines that happen to be >>using Unix machines to communicate. A few net groups are absolutely unique to usenet (not being replicated on local BBS systems and pay-for-use systems like CompuServe). These are the more technical groups: net.unix, net.lan etc. Whatever else happens first priority must be to preserve these groups. Discussions about MSDOS, pets, gardening and Atari ST's can, if necessary, be continued elsewhere. The arguements about net groups typically reduce to personal preference, a popularity contest about which ones most of the people using the net happen to like or a signal-to-noise ratio discussion. Since the net, as it is now, cannot grow without bound, breaking it down into various (hopefully reasonably interconnected domains) is probably inevitable at some point. If nothing else, trying to transfer 1 Gig of news a day will not work with current technology. My personal preference is to think of the net as composed of four fundamental parts: net.unique.groups, net.other.technical.groups (net.micro etc), net.the.rest and mod.* and to base future plans on these fundamental domains. -- voice= 415 823-2441 uucp={ihnp4,dual,qantel}!ptsfa!jmc
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (05/27/86)
Distribution: In article <51@intelca.UUCP> cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >> I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given >> any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. >> >[...] there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. > 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to > network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) > 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical > mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and > apple machines it would have a good chance here). Does anybody have a conjecture as to the effect of a generally-available program that would allow apples and CP/M machines (and others) to connect to the usenet? This question is not completely idle. Think about your responses..
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/31/86)
In article <51@intelca.UUCP> cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >> I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given >> any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network. >there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. > 1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to > network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use) > 2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical > mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and > apple machines it would have a good chance here). I didn't say "don't", I said "can't". If you feel you need a dedicated phone line, I'm sure that your local phone company would be very happy to install one for you at the same rates they charge for a phone line connected to a UNIX machine. No standard and free package? Well, get busy and write one! This is the information age, people. If you want to convince anyone that your fav machine is worth the power it sucks out of the outlet, it had better be able to communicate. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy