tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/13/89)
Again, Usenet is not like a BBS, regardless of the intentions of some of
the people who post to it, because of the resource burden involved in
making it happen. A BBS typically provides a centralized site into
which users *voluntarily* dial to access its message base and
libraries. The same is true of commercial timesharing services. So if
frivolity is perpetuated, no one pays except those who choose to do so.
Usenet's flood algorithm, on the other hand, visits the sins of the tiro
upon the willing and unwilling alike. The only cost effective control
is limiting which newsgroups a site passes; so polluting popular,
practical newsgroups with inappropriate postings is an uncontrollable
form of rudeness.
Many college students have access to BBS's outside of school hours and
facilities, and access to the Net in school. The temptation to treat
them similarly is understandable but needs to be fought with education.
--
Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff
and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETeacj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) (09/13/89)
In article <14661@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Usenet's flood algorithm, on the other hand, visits the sins of the tiro >upon the willing and unwilling alike. The only cost effective control What is the "flood algorithm?" Where do I go to line up two-by-two? (Sorry, couldn't resist..) But I am really interested in what happens when the system saturates. Does this account for situations where I have missed seeing messages that other netters are commenting on? I always assumed that missed messages were due to hardware outages. -- Julian Vrieslander Neurobiology & Behavior, W250 Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 UUCP: {cmcl2,decvax,rochester,uw-beaver}!cornell!batcomputer!eacj INTERNET: eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu BITNET: eacj@CRNLTHRY
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (09/13/89)
According to wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes): >Next lesson: nitpicking has it's limits. When it comes right down to it, >USENET is really nothing more than a huge BBS. I wasn't nitpicking. Usenet isn't a BBS. The differences between the two are so striking that I'm surprised there's any confusion. For example: Difference #1: Administration. A BBS has _one_ (chief) administrator, and therefore has _one_ set of policies. Usenet is carried on thousands of machines, each of which has an administrator. Each administrator has policies and axes to grind. No single person is in charge of Usenet. In case of disagreement, there is no authority to appeal to, hence there is no final decision. Difference #2: Finances. Posting a message to a BBS involves no transportation charges other than your time to write it and the time of those who read it. Posting an article to Usenet costs real money, not necessarily to the sender and the readers, but to the owner(s) of every system that carries the group. I could go on, but these differences are sufficient. Usenet is not a BBS. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." -- Fudd's First Law of Opposition
mikeh@dell.dell.com (Mike Hammel) (09/14/89)
In article <8839@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes:
-But I am really interested in what happens
-when the system saturates. Does this account for situations where I have
-missed seeing messages that other netters are commenting on? I always
-assumed that missed messages were due to hardware outages.
Technically, the "system" (USENET) couldn't saturate completely, could it?
I could see pieces of it, major pieces, getting completely flooded but not
the entire network. By design wouldn't traffic flow around the saturated
points (find alternate paths) to keep moving? (Does this question belong
here? Or should I graduate to another group? :-))
Michael J. Hammel | UUCP(preferred): ...!cs.utexas.edu!dell!Kepler!mjhammel
Dell Computer Corp. | Also: ...!dell!mikeh or 73377.3467@compuserve.com
Austin, TX | Phone: 512-338-4400 ext 7169
Disclaimer: These are my views, not those of my employers. So there.bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (09/14/89)
In article <14661@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: |[bumph] |Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff | and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET Go ahead, make our day... -- \__/ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \@@/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/~/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< \_ Happiness is a warm gnu, yes it is - R. M. Soulman
epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) (09/14/89)
In article <8839@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes: >What is the "flood algorithm?" Considering when netnews was written, I'd guess that the term comes from ARPAland. Each IMP (Packet Switching Node) maintained a routing table that indicated the shortest path to all the other IMPs. The problem was, how do you distribute routing information if you don't already know how to route? The solution was to "flood"--each IMP would send updates to all of its directly- connected neighbors, which would do the same. It's called a flood because it spills out in all directions. Usenet distribution works pretty much the same way, although there's some filtering involved. There are two basic mechanisms for keeping articles from circulating around forever: Path and Message-ID. The Path keeps track of where an article has been. netnews isn't supposed to propagate an article to any machine that's already seen it. For this to work properly, each machine must have a unique name. Each article also has a unique Message-ID. Netnews maintains a "history database" of every Message-ID it's seen. If an article arrives that's already in the history, it stops there. Each site normally keeps articles for two weeks, and history for four. > But I am really interested in what happens >when the system saturates. "Imminent death of USENET" predictions start to appear. > Does this account for situations where I have >missed seeing messages that other netters are commenting on? I always >assumed that missed messages were due to hardware outages. Since each article finds its own way, you'll at times see followups before the base articles. If you never see an article, it probably means that something got wiped out upstream. Many sites consider their spool partitions relatively expendable, so hardware failures tend to affect news more than anything else. One "solution" to this is redundant connectivity. -=EPS=-
davisp@everest.CWRU.EDU (Palmer Davis) (09/14/89)
In article <14661@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > >A BBS typically provides a centralized site into which users *voluntarily* >dial to access its message base and libraries. The same is true of >commercial timesharing services. So if frivolity is perpetuated, no one pays >except those who choose to do so. Usenet's flood algorithm, on the other >hand, visits the sins of the tiro (sic) upon the willing and unwilling alike. >The only cost effective control is limiting which newsgroups a site passes; >so polluting popular, practical newsgroups with inappropriate postings is an >uncontrollable form of rudeness. > Polluting popular, practical BBS's with inappropriate postings is equally rude. Furthermore, many BBS's (I'm thinking of FidoNet in particular) support echo conferences across sites (almost exactly like Usenet newsgroups). When frivolity is perpetuated on bulletin boards, everyone who uses them suffers. When frivolity is perpetuated on Usenet, everyone who uses Usenet suffers. Courtesy and respect for others is absolutely necessary whether you're posting to Usenet or to a BBS (which some kind soul is funding out of his own pocket). The need to treat them with equal respect seems to me to be quite clear. Just thought I'd chip in my two cents' worth, since I'm a recent addition to Usenet from FidoNet. -- Palmer T. Davis -- Palmer T. Davis | The opinions expressed herein are my own Case Western Reserve University | and do not necessarily represent the truth. davisp@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu | Flame away to your heart's content.
davisp@everest.CWRU.EDU (Palmer Davis) (09/14/89)
In article <250E77F2.10787@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > > Posting a message to a BBS involves no transportation charges other > than your time to write it and the time of those who read it. Try telling that to the sysop of a medium-to-large-sized BBS. Running a BBS requires that you tie up at least one phone line (more if you're multiuser), one or more modems, a computer, and enough storage to carry enough conferences and files to make your BBS attractive to the users, who have thousands of alternatives to call. Add to this the headaches of having things crash in the middle of the night. Add to this the danger of getting sued by some irate user (this has really happened to people I know). A halfway-decent setup (i.e. one that's worth going to the trouble of setting up) can easily put the sysop out several thousand dollars, plus monthly phone bills etc. Remember: the people who run these things are VOLUNTEERS. If you get well-established, you may get a few users to chip in a little money to help defray the costs of running your board, but for the most part, it costs the operators of bulletin boards money to keep the board going. In a way, abusing these people is almost worse than abusing Usenet. Not that that stops many users... Being rude is always a Bad Thing, whether you're on Usenet, on a BBS, or out walking around on the street. When people say that Usenet is really just a big BBS, I think what they're trying to say is that from the point of the user, Usenet and most BBS software seem to perform the same functions. The analogy is much closer for boards active in some user-supported network such as FidoNet or one of its spinoffs. Certainly, Usenet is what most bulletin board systems (and networks) would *like* to be, in their wildest wet dreams. The big difference between Usenet and FidoNet is that Usenet is bigger and more cohesive (not to mention better-funded), and thus doesn't have to worry quite as much about whether it can afford to stay in existence. Does this make any sense? -- Palmer T. Davis -- Palmer T. Davis | The opinions expressed herein are my own Case Western Reserve University | and do not necessarily represent the truth. davisp@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu | Flame away to your heart's content.