NU098674@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Hammel) (05/01/88)
From: pat@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM (Patrick Pesch) <In Message: <897@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM>, pat@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM < (Patrick Pesch) says: < Why "shar" DOS programs in the ibm.pc newsgroup? BECAUSE THIS < IS A UNIX NETWORK! < < :-) What an interesting, all-encompassing, sweeping statement of philosophy! That explains why computers need modems to talk to each other in English over the phone lines. Yeah, that's it! As long as the end product is a program to be used on the PC, we might as well make it unusable while we we transmit it. I like that. Slip in a bit of good, old-fashioned "If you want to use our equipment to transmit, you have to use it for every- thing else, too." Capitalism at its finest. 8=) Thank you for your support, Tony -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- 'Well, Penfeld. It looks like we'll have to save the world again!' 'Oooh, ick.' :DangerMouse: The preceding announcement has been brought to you by the makers of Penguin Party Products... Anything you can fit in a fridge and more! Flames to /dev/some/one/who/might/notice PS: If you can't find anything else to flame me about, try my spelling.
loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (05/03/88)
In article <742NU098674@NDSUVM1> NU098674@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Hammel) writes: >From: pat@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM (Patrick Pesch) > ><In Message: <897@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM>, pat@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM >< (Patrick Pesch) says: > >< Why "shar" DOS programs in the ibm.pc newsgroup? BECAUSE THIS >< IS A UNIX NETWORK! >< > >What an interesting, all-encompassing, sweeping statement of philosophy! >That explains why computers need modems to talk to each other in English >over the phone lines. Yeah, that's it! As long as the end product is a >program to be used on the PC, we might as well make it unusable while we >we transmit it. I like that. Slip in a bit of good, old-fashioned "If >you want to use our equipment to transmit, you have to use it for every- >thing else, too." Capitalism at its finest. 8=) > >Thank you for your support, >Tony > I don't see what capitalism has to do with it. The PC users don't pay anything for the routes they use. It seems to me that they are guests, in a way. Surely a better way to serve the PC user is for them to get together (stop laughing) and form their own international, reliable, and convenient network. Naturally, everyone would work together and freely contribute their time, efforts, and cash to make an even better net. All users would instantly agree on protocols, compaction, archivers, services, etc. just like they do on the usenet groups. I'm sure no one will mind volunteering to be a backbone site; think of all the glamour and recognition that goes with it. Besides, everyone will be understanding and patient even if you have to go off-line for a couple of minutes. I think it's clear that such a project isn't going to happen since the hardware, software, programmers, etc. for such a network don't exist. Why not just be nice guests on usenet and act like you are civilized.
ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (05/04/88)
In article <541@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: } Surely a better way to serve the PC user is for them to get } together (stop laughing) and form their own international, } reliable, and convenient network. Naturally, everyone would } work together and freely contribute their time, efforts, and } cash to make an even better net. All users would instantly } agree on protocols, compaction, archivers, services, etc. } just like they do on the usenet groups. I'm sure no one will } mind volunteering to be a backbone site; think of all the } glamour and recognition that goes with it. Besides, everyone } will be understanding and patient even if you have to go } off-line for a couple of minutes. } } I think it's clear that such a project isn't going to happen } since the hardware, software, programmers, etc. for such a } network don't exist. Why not just be nice guests on usenet } and act like you are civilized. Hmm, that's strange.... You've just described FIDOnet to a "T". How about 2400+ PCs worldwide all talking to each other, sending not only mail, but also ECHOMAIL, which is the equivalent of USEnet! And at the rate the FIDOnet nodelist is growing (130+ new systems per MONTH and increasing), my estimate is that is will surpass the size of USEnet in about four years.... The ECHOMAIL volume is already one-third of USEnet's volume. FIDOnet's rapid increase in size *is* causing some growing pains, two manifestations of which are a fair amount of wrangling and flameage, and at least two other compatible and interoperable nets started by people who were tired of being flamed. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
keeshu@nikhefk.UUCP (Kees Huyser) (05/04/88)
In article <541@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: # Surely a better way to serve the PC user is for them to get # together (stop laughing) and form their own international, # reliable, and convenient network. Naturally, everyone would # work together and freely contribute their time, efforts, and # cash to make an even better net. All users would instantly # agree on protocols, compaction, archivers, services, etc. # just like they do on the usenet groups. I'm sure no one will # mind volunteering to be a backbone site; think of all the # glamour and recognition that goes with it. Besides, everyone # will be understanding and patient even if you have to go # off-line for a couple of minutes. # # I think it's clear that such a project isn't going to happen # since the hardware, software, programmers, etc. for such a # network don't exist. Why not just be nice guests on usenet # and act like you are civilized. The hardware exists, the PC users *have* PC's, otherwise they wouldn't be PC users :-) The software exists, FidoNet has been used for about 4 years now. The programmers exist, f.i. Tom Jennings, originator of FidoNet. FidoNet has at this moment about 3500 nodes in all continents, each node with a link to a backbone. The backbones communicate via dial-up lines at speeds upto 19200 BPS. Protocols are discussed in the IFNA (International Fido Net Association) Protocols Committee. Of course not everything is achieved without some dissident voices here and there, but that can be expected of a network in which 3500 SysOps try to keep things running. Afterall, most SysOps pay the hardware AND the telephone costs out of their own pockets, so they have a right to yell if they don't like something. Try to contact a FidoNet node in your neighbourhood sometime; if you act like you are civilized they might let you on as a nice guest.... -- Kees | UUCP : keeshu@nikhefk.uucp or {[wherever]!uunet}!mcvax!nikhefk!keeshu | BITNET : keeshu@hasara5.bitnet | FIDO : Kees Huyser @ 2:508/15 (Opus_MacSaga) | SNAIL : Kees Huyser, NIKHEF-K, PO Box 4395, 1009 AJ Amsterdam, Netherlands +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ens598@leah.Albany.Edu (Eric Sheffer) (05/05/88)
In article <541@csccat.UUCP>, loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: > > I don't see what capitalism has to do with it. The PC users don't > pay anything for the routes they use. It seems to me that they > are guests, in a way. > Did you ever stop to think that some pc users might be UN*X users, as well? I am not your guest; I have just the same right to be here as you do!! > Surely a better way to serve the PC user is for them to get > together (stop laughing) and form their own international, > reliable, and convenient network. Naturally, everyone would That makes as much sense as did the breakup of ma bell. Such unnecessary duplication is a waste of resources and money. > I think it's clear that such a project isn't going to happen > since the hardware, software, programmers, etc. for such a > network don't exist. Why not just be nice guests on usenet > and act like you are civilized. Why don't you climb down off your high horse and stop wasting bandwidth!!! _______________________________________________________________________________ __ __ Eric Sheffer / / / \ ens598@leah.albany.edu / / / /\ \ Dept. of Geography and Planning / /_/ / _\ \ The University at Albany "No beach to walk on..." /_____/ /____\ _______________________________________________________________________________
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/05/88)
In article <541@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: | Surely a better way to serve the PC user is for them to get | together (stop laughing) and form their own international, | reliable, and convenient network. Naturally, everyone would | work together and freely contribute their time, efforts, and | cash to make an even better net. All users would instantly | agree on protocols, compaction, archivers, services, etc. Once upon a time there was a net called FIDOnet. It was just about as you describe. It was run by anarchy; if you didn't like another sysop you just didn't feed him. If what you wanted was worth it, you paid the phone costs. If you wanted to connect to other nets, you did. Now it's organized. People at "the top" make policy, rules, and changes. If you belong to another net (say AlterNet) FIDO sysops are told to shun you. I don't want to get into a major discussion here, but anarchy works quite well, thank you. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (05/08/88)
In article <10723@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <541@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: > >| Surely a better way to serve the PC user is for them to get >| together (stop laughing) and form their own international, >| reliable, and convenient network. Naturally, everyone would >| work together and freely contribute their time, efforts, and >| cash to make an even better net. All users would instantly >| agree on protocols, compaction, archivers, services, etc. > > Once upon a time there was a net called FIDOnet. It was just about as >you describe. It was run by anarchy; if you didn't like another sysop >you just didn't feed him. If what you wanted was worth it, you paid the >phone costs. If you wanted to connect to other nets, you did. That does seem to be great: black-ball people, refuse feeds, etc. Just the mentality I'd expect from this group. The one good thing about it is that you pay your own way. > > Now it's organized. People at "the top" make policy, rules, and >changes. If you belong to another net (say AlterNet) FIDO sysops are >told to shun you. I don't want to get into a major discussion here, but >anarchy works quite well, thank you. Shun others!! Amazing. You have proven my point to a tee. Usenet doesn't do any of that: they even let you slimers post your binaries here, though they would rather you didn't. They make polite requests, get ignored, and tolerate it. I especially like the way that the way that the fido-sites spool up everybodies mail and read it. I suppose they can't get any of their own. That's really low, but hey, if you like it so much, WHY ARE YOU HERE? You prove my point to a tee. >"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me Yes, it shows. This group is just like the single-minded toys that ibm passes off as computers. I chuckle every time somebody posts a problem with compatibility cuz you've let ibm paint you into a corner and you're just too stubborn to admit it. Anyway, keep those flames coming: some of them are better than the comics. And others make no sense at all. But I love it. Without these comp.ibm groups, I wouldn't be able to shoot fish in a barrel.