ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (12/19/89)
In article <891@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: >In article <40@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mq.oz (Ian Farquhar) writes: >>I hold no respect >>for those people who whine every time a large article is posted, they remind >>me of those laboratory administrators who like their lovely equipment >>unsullied by actual use. The net is there, let's use it! > >You mean, "The net is there, let's abuse it! I don't have to pay for it!!!" > >Big postings: 1) time up the modem, 2) increase my phone bill, and 3) fill >up my /usenet partition so that NOTHING ELSE CAN BE RECEIVED. If you were >to send me money to cover items 2 and 3, then I wouldn't mind item 1. :-) I have absolutely no wish to turn this into a juvenile flaming session. However, I feel that it is nevessary to respond to this. The net is a voluntary system. There is no compulsion to receive certain newsgroups (at least under all versions of the software that I am aware of), and if you as a network administrator have valid local limitations, then you are quite free to choose not to get receive these groups. This is purely a local concern, as is the question of cost. My point was simply to remind people that FTP access is unavailable to many sites. I also wanted, in my last paragraph, illustrate what I consider to be a worrying movement developing on the network: censorship and a small group of vocal people deciding what is "acceptable" on the network as a whole. Perhaps I should have expanded on this point rather than using the (obviously ineffective) shock tactics. Your definition of "aduse" seems very interesting, Joe. What I was suggesting is that initial posting should be made available to ALL users of the network. I - and many other local net users - are continually frustrated to hear of items available for FTP access. I do not see that our desire to access this material contributes an abuse of the network. I personally feel that posting the items initially would reduce the network traffic in the long run, though I have no statistics to prove this. In the long run, this whole discussion comes down to one important question: what is the net for? If the network is for users, then I feel that my viewpoint in valid. If the network is a nice showpiece to show of to the administrators but nothing more, then it follows that we should not consider the requirements of users. I leave this question to the net-community. I apologise for using net bandwidth replying to something like this, but I think that this is a very important issue. Although I sympathise with Joe Smith's position, I do not sympathise with the way he has chosen to reply to this issue. If anyone has anything further to say, let's move this discussion to a more appropriate newsgroup. I am not attacking you, Joe. I just think that your position seems rooted in the very attitude I was trying to illustrate. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employers. Ian Farquhar Macquarie University Sydney, Australia. D