mlandau@Diamond.BBN.COM (Matt Landau) (09/08/86)
In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) FLAMES WILDLY: >In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: >> >> [rick's reply amounted to "The backbone isn't going to carry everything. >> You're free to start a mailing list or drop off the net." --ML] >> >>Great attitude, huh? Almost no one reading this article is going to know who I am (which is the way I like it), but I've been quietly on Usenet for almost seven years, since its early days, and watched it grow from a small handful of machines and a few dozen readers to thousands of machines and tens of thousands of readers. I'd *really* hoped to avoid getting involved in this flaming war over the impending newsgroup reorganization, but it seems that as the net has grown, some people have forgotten a few basic facts about it. It comes down to this: The only thing that makes Usenet possible is the time and money of a relatively small collection of sites and people who do the work of writing news software, who try to track down and solve problems in the network, and who pay the (often enormous) phone bills to ship *YOUR* newsgroups around the country and around the world. Nothing says these people HAVE to provide this service for you. They do it because they think that Usenet is a Good Thing. They do it in spite of the headaches involved in trying to coordinate a network this large and amorphous. They do it in spite of the time it takes in addition to their real jobs. (You don't think anyone gets paid to keep Usenet running, do you?) They do it in spite of the aggravation they must get trying to explain to their management why their employer is spending hundreds (in some cases, thousands) of dollars a month to send information about nude beaches, bad jokes, recreational drugs, and Hasidic bus drivers around the globe. They do it in spite of people who flame them for not doing all of this exactly the way the flamer thinks it should be done. The single most important thing that people seem to have forgotten is that without the efforts of Rich Adams, Gene Spafford, Mark Horton, and others like them (other backbone admins, please don't take offense at not being listed explicitly), *there wouldn't be a Usenet for you to flame on or about!* USENET IS NOT A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. IT'S A PRIVILEGE MADE POSSIBLE BY A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD TO KEEP IT ALL RUNNING. I, for one, appreciate the efforts these people put forth. You should too. > >This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. I am posting this follow-up to ask >two questions, both of Mr. Rick Adams and the readership of Usenet. > > 1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this > network with such a heavy hand? Arpanet is owned by > DOD, but Usenet is not owned by anyone. See above. Rick is the news admin for seismo.css.gov, one of the backbone news sites. Seismo provides news and mail service for a substantial part of the net, either directly or indirectly. (How many sites does seismo feed these days, Rick, and how much UUCP mail do you route for people?) You're right, Usenet is not owned by anyone. Essentially, each machine is free to do as it damn well pleases as far as passing or not passing on certain groups. So why flame at Rick and seismo for doing with their machine as they see fit? Because it's inconvenient for you? Sorry, but it's more inconvenient for them to keep up the status quo. Since they do the work and pay the bills, they win. > > 2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what > is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil > communication? If it happens to net.rec.skydive, it > can also happen to anyone else's group. > "Legitimate, civil communication"? Give me a break. Freedom of expression is guaranteed you by the US Constitution. Freedom of expression over an electronic network maintained and financed by someone is not. If you're unhappy about a particular group being dropped by the backbone, you have two choices: (1) Start a mailing list. If there's really enough traffic, maybe the backbone sites will reconsider a newsgroup later. Then again, maybe not. (2) Set up your own side-net by getting all the people who are interested in your pet newsgroup to carry it among themselves. In at least one case (net.rec.drugs), I believe this has been done successfully. Anyone can start a newsgroup. If the backbone sites don't want carry it, it simply means you have to set up your own news links and pay your own long-distance bills. That's not NEARLY as hard as what the backbone admins have to do. >I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice >long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. You'd better hope Rick doesn't take you seriously. If he and the other backbone administrators WERE to drop off the net, Usenet wouldn't last long. If you're *really* unhappy about the way these people are handling things, volunteer your site as a Usenet backbone and take on some of the workload. I've heard Rick and others publicly state that they'd welcome anyone who wants to become part of the backbone. But until you assume some of the responsibilities, you've got no right to complain about the way these people try to maintain the Net. -- Matt Landau BBN Laboratories, Inc. mlandau@diamond.bbn.com 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge MA 02238 ...harvard!diamond.bbn.com!mlandau (617) 497-2429
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (09/08/86)
>In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: [Rather `strongly worded' reply; see <216@bridge2.UUCP> or <676@bcsaic.UUCP> for the text.] In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes: >This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. Have you seen the original message? I have not; and I will not condemn Rick without knowing that context. > 1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this > network with such a heavy hand? Who needs `authority'? Usenet is run---when it is run at all---by co-operation, and each event is almost invariably begun by a single individual. Rick started things, and as far as I know, all those with whom he was talking went along. It is perhaps significant that those people are the ones in charge of the so-called backbone sites. These people, not Rick alone, came up with the current reorganisation list. > 2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what > is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil > communication? It is hardly censorship. This argument has been made and rebutted before. You are free to post what you will; Rick is free to insult you; and all of you are free either to drop of the net, or to stop forwarding articles from some particular user or site. Doing any of these with abandon will not help at all. >I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, That is possible ... >and is in need of a nice long rest. but that is merely insulting. >It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. Alas, I am afraid that he very well may. Seismo cannot continue to pay $50,000 every year for Usenet. Rick clearly does not want to cut off everything; but in the end, that *is* the ultimate solution. Unfortunately, as goes seismo, so do we: I doubt that even one member of the local cluster of sites fed via seismo is willing to take on that kind of expense. Personally, I think Usenet is not worth that much money. It is only barely worth the time and effort required to keep its outdated, buggy software going. Rick may well have over-reacted. If so, the proper thing to do is ignore his outburst; he will soon calm down. And if not---if the original message was a thermite-fueled flame---well, in that case, his reply might well be considered mild. So calm down. Have a glass of milk. Look at the stars high above the garden. Even if it all collapses tomorrow, they will still be there. Usenet is neat, and I like it, but it is hardly worth raising your blood pressure about anything that happens to it. And if, after this, you are still worried, contact your friends now---`while you have the chance'---and set up a whole new network. Perhaps someday we will join you. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (09/12/86)
... > The only thing that makes Usenet possible is the time and money of a > relatively small collection of sites and people who do the work of > writing news software, who try to track down and solve problems in > the network, and who pay the (often enormous) phone bills to > ship *YOUR* newsgroups around the country and around the world. ... > in addition to their real jobs. (You don't think anyone gets paid > to keep Usenet running, do you?) They do it in spite of the aggravation ... > The single most important thing that people seem to have forgotten > is that without the efforts of Rich Adams, Gene Spafford, Mark > Horton, and others like them (other backbone admins, please don't > take offense at not being listed explicitly), *there wouldn't be > a Usenet for you to flame on or about!* > > USENET IS NOT A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. IT'S A PRIVILEGE MADE POSSIBLE > BY A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD TO KEEP IT ALL RUNNING. > I, for one, appreciate the efforts these people put forth. You > should too. ... > -- > Matt Landau BBN Laboratories, Inc. Very well put! Couldn't agree with you more!!! -- -------------------------------------- Godfrey Lee Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Drive Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1440 decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee --------------------------------------
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (09/16/86)
In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes: >In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >>Great attitude, huh? If one is temperate in one's correspondence with Adams, I've always found his responses reasonable. I suspect from the brief extract that Fries' may not have been the most temperate of the many many letters (including mine) that Adams received on the subject. > 1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this > network with such a heavy hand? Arpanet is owned by > DOD, but Usenet is not owned by anyone. Bingo. DoD nor seismo nor AT&T nor anybody "owns" Usenet, especially since it really isn't a single thing anyone CAN "own". As far as the ARPAnet, DoD "owns" it in the sense that it tries to regulate use of those lines which it pays for; but the non-DDN nets that are part of the more general Internet (anything not on 10 or 26) are not "owned" or run by DoD -- DoD only regulates how they interact with 10 and 26 (and then, imperfectly regulates that). Seismo and other "backbone" sites, by virtue of the fact that THEY and NOT YOU pay for their machines and the majority of the comms costs for the news that passes through them, and in an attempt to be as of much service as they can! without getting swamped! have a perfect right to decide what goes through their machines, as do you for your machines. They have repeatedly said that if you value an alternate topic so much, you are perfectly welcome to set up alternate comms routes that do not involve their news machines. > 2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what > is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil > communication? If it happens to net.rec.skydive, it > can also happen to anyone else's group. No. We are not. You are perfectly welcome to set up a mailing list, net.rec.skydive. It is agreed by the responsible members of the net that, to prevent net overload and total failure, we have to somehow regulate the initialisation of new net news topics. The most fair way seems to have been to take existing mail in an already overworked topic (C from Unix, e.g.) and make a new topic. If any net.rec topic threatens net.unix, I think it should be shunted to alternate comms channels -- or shut off, if no one cares enough to do that. >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice >long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. Did you read either of the relevant notes? Did you notice that Adams' only "job", as far as this goes, was to type in the announcement that was agreed on by the people who are spending their bucks (well, their employers' -- from which fund their salaries are drawn) to bring us news? Did you note that even HE did not agree with all of it? And finally, are you sure that Fries' out-of-context quote: >>>You are, of course, free to drop off the network. >>>You certainly aren't doing ME a favor by "passing the shit along". >>>Start a mailing list if its that important. was not merely a response to Fries' (no doubt sarcastic) offer to do so? That last is just a guess, based on knowing Adams' style. But I personally think that's prob'ly what happened. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)