ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (06/23/91)
Albert's latest has sparked some hard thinking about my view of the net, and this article represents my initial responses to changes in that view. Since I wrote it as the changes were occurring, there is some rambling in places. I hope that it can provide a springboard to the discussion that Albert hopes for. Greg Woodbury In article <1991Jun20.212602.14470@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >In article <1991Jun9.225229.25374@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com >(Dave Mack) quotes and writes: > [Albert, referring to an old thread in news.admin] >Well, to be honest I don't think the subject merits the 100 or more >postings that have been devoted to it so far. The last batch was >sufficiently vacuous for me to take a break and enjoy my other hobby of >banging my head against walls before returning to the fray. So do we all Albert, sometimes there are some changes in the perceptions along the way. >On a more serious note, I think Tom Neff addressed a more important >reason for caring than the one that motivated me - describing >Usenet to new users as an amorphous blob with no organization, tends >to undermine the degree of organization that has been achieved. No one is denying that there is a self-perpetuating entity with a high degree of organization that we all know and love under the convenient handle of "Usenet". The issue is how to characterize that particular organization. >The reason I cared was more a result of what I saw as a concerted >attack on democratic voting during the m.a.g. discussion. In >retrospect I can see it was just hot air from some windbags, whose >concentration span is so low that they could not even follow through >when the renaming vote produced a predictably inconclusive result. Oh please, at a certain point it becomes obvious that a particular point of view is not being shared by those-who-count-in- the-net (be they the mythical citizens or the sysadmins). When it becomes obvious that some group is going to be emplaced despite all sorts of procedural errors and serious concern over the content of the group in the main hierarchies, all one can do is sigh and wait for a day to come when it is appropriate to say "I told you so" (if appropriate). >Although some people keep emphasizing how it's "only" Usenet and not >the "real" world, I think Usenet is a very important and valuable >achievement which has many lessons. Computer mediated communications >are certainly set to "take off" far beyond the present academic/research/ >computer hobbyist circles and could quite soon embrace practically >anybody with access to a wordprocessor - which would soon include most office >workers and most people that have an advanced Hi Fi set. Whether or not >Usenet succeeds in continuing to evolve and adapt, the structures that >emerge to cope with that will benefit from discussion of what Usenet is >and what it is becoming. Usenet is certainly a prototype of some kind of electronic community. When it started, the hard core computer types were the creators of a new medium for themselves to use and play with each other. As the academic networks grew, and the Internet became more and more used, more and more users (who are NOT hard core computer types) have entered into the net and forced it to adapt to their presence. B-News was a major correction, as was the "great renaming". Evolution is in effect and Albert's comments have effected some change in my perceptions of Usenet. I still disagree with some of the positions he holds, but I understand him more fully. >I would prefer to move on to discuss what Usenet is becoming, and what it >should be becoming, once we get past the blindspots about what it is. In >particular I think the shift in decision making power from "system >administrators" to "users" is an interesting and remarkable phenonoma, which >should be analysed and understood, but cannot be while a polite "fiction" is >maintained that system administrators still have the decisive say over >the shape of the net which they had in it's early days. Well then, let us recognize a distinction between the FORM of the net and its CONTENT. The two are related, but can be considered distinctly. The content is changing more and more to a consumer-oriented market, giving the users what they want, rather than what the admins THINK they want or tell them what they want. I see this as a direct parallel to the more traditional (american) broadcast markets' evolution. When TV became a viable medium (economically) and more persons became "viewers", the producers told users what they wanted and Groucho Marx became an institution. Later, viewers became more vocal about what they desired and we have Dennis the Menace and Mr Ed and My Favorite Martian (segue into Quantum Leap and Twin Peaks and Dallas). Finally, we have cable in more than 50% of american (usa) households, and the alternative networks are gaining more audience at the expense of the old broadcast networks. Meanwhile, the broadcast stations, stuck in an outmoded situation, but not able to change the situation (due to regulation/inertia) give an appearance of becoming more "democratic" and thrashing about producing more pap in an attempt to salvage market share. Usenet is currently in a content situation where there is a rapid growth of special interest groups, all vying for market share, and still thinking that the effective way is to get onto the broadcast bands and be supported by the public wheal. Other groups are using similar technologies (e.g. video/usenet) in directed ways (e.g. cable vs broadcast / news vs mail) to find their markets. Then there is the FORM of Usenet. Sites in discreet situations, run by folk caught in a mode of private service providers. New situations are emerging and new administrative paradigms are needed to allow effective management. However, the inertia of the given situation does not allow the rapid development of techniques for quasi-public information management - it is still being looked at as a set of discreet sites. >(Dave Mack - remember him?) >>I administer two sites on Usenet, neither of them terribly important. >>There is nothing that the rest of the sites on Usenet can do to remove >>me from the net, force me to stay on the net, keep me from issuing >>a newgroup control message, force me to honor one, or prevent me >>from posting anything I damn well please. The individual sites that >>I communicate with have the power to disconnect me, but I doubt that >>they are likely to do so as a result of any democratic process. And here is the prime example. Dave is at (according to his address) a commercial site in the USA. This is the cultural bastion of feudal thinking in the world today! :-) {IMHO - I have my own private site too!} In his situation, what he says is true. There is no quasi-democracy telling him (or the company) how they are going to devote their resources or dictating the form of Usenet. The content that is seen within that form, however, is being driven by this quasi-democratic conception of Albert's. It is "market pressure" that "encourages" Dave to go along with the rest of Usenet. This is in the form of the simple dis-incentive of - if he adopts a severly different form, the content is going to be of less value. >Indeed, and much the same is becoming true for your users too. But isn't it >even more interesting that you as a system administrator have no more say >than any other user on whether a newsgroup gets propagated widely or not? >There is nothing you can do, apart from voting, that has the slightest >influence on whether a given newsgroup will succeed or fail. Any newgroup >or rmgroup control message you may issue will affect only a few sites >downstream from you (until they arrange a more reliable feed) and your own >users (until they arrange a more reliable sysadmin or find a better system). On the other hand, if a site determines that it is going to quit carrying a group, a new subset of Usenet comes into existence. If that subset is sufficiently large, the rest of the net notices and moves to conform/adapt. There is still a feudal sitation around in that most sites are not set up to really allow users the option of forcing a change in the sysadmin (or even change sites) if they don't like the way that subset of the Usenet is formed. >If you disagree with that description of the way things are, by all >means refute it. If on reflection you agree with it, then please >reflect on why you focussed on your administration of sites rather than >on the position of all (equal citizen) Usenet users. It seems to me that >the changes which have occurred in the status of users have not fully >registered. They are called citizens now, not serfs. THIS DISCUSSION >IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU AS A SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR CAN AND CANNOT DO. Yes and no. The models of site administration are still holdovers from the Middle Ages! (or is it that they are just middle aged? :-) A few large university sites may have a strong enough user base to qualify as a democratic city-state, but most sites are still the feudal demense of the administrators and the system owners. It may be that I am just sitting in a backwater and preserving an illusion of my own self-importance, but the commentary seen flowing past in the net leads me to think that my world view (or net view - I guess that is someone's TM :-) is not too badly out of whack. >It is about "What is Usenet" and one point Chip accepted immediately is >that Usenet is not a set of machines, or even their administrators, but >of people who exchange articles under "universally recognized newsgroup >labels". Those people writing and reading the articles are Usenet and they >would find ways to go on doing so if every single sysadmin collapsed >foaming at the mouth tomorrow. (Most likely by hiring some of the >excellent software developers around to finish the job by automating >the role of sysadmin :-) Here is the rub. If all the sysadmins walked out and went on holiday for (lets say) three days, Usenet (and the Internet) would collapse into chaos. The amount of work necessary to keep a site running (Usenet facilities only) varies from minimal to full-time. It is in NO CASE zero. Until the majority of sites can have usenet run completely automagically (with zero human effort), the sysadmin is going to be a necessary piece of the pie. This site runs pretty smoothly, but I still spend several hours a day keeping it going. My upstream (currently) is a major node that has several people devoting a fair amount of their ("spare" :-) time to Usenet. If these folk decided to let Usenet "run itself" for any length of time, a major portion of the net would collapse. If only the top 50 (or so) sites of Brian Reid's "influence list" were to drop out, the net would collapse. To be sure, something else (with a strong resemblence to Usenet) would arise in a few days time, but the effect of the temporary collapse would set in motion such changes that Usenet' (prime) would not be the same as Usenet. >Part of the confusion is created by avoiding the issue of citizens v serfs >under cover of mixing up feudalism with anarchism. "We are all equal >Lords of our domains with no central authority" say the feudalists, >but "all" does not count the serfs, who meanwhile have setup a >Republic and do not recognize feudal authority. > No wonder >that in western societies the King and the people united to crush >the Barons long ago. The serfs don't "just set up a Republic" and rennounce the feudal authority. The development of the independent city-states is a necessary step in the history of democratic development. And be careful, it was the feudal barons, upset with the usurpation of their feifdoms by King John that sparked the signing of The Magna Carta and the establishment of Parliament. Only later, after the Universities had nucleated the development of urban centers, were the barons forced to add the House of Commons and create a true democratic situation. >A glance at news.groups will show you how Usenet ACTUALLY decides >on new newsgroups. Yet the widespread consensus remains among >sysadmins that voting is an illusion to keep the serfs in line. >Since in fact the power of sysadmins is now largely illusory, while >that of citizens is real and being exercised daily, it would be more >accurate to say that the special role of sysadmins, which many >sysadmins believe in so passionately, is purely a polite fiction >like the special role of the British monarchy, to keep the >aristocrats in line. You insist on your own model as the only valid situation? The content is a market-driven quantity. News.groups is the indicia of the market. The site admins respond to the market pressures to maintain a market share (because it pleases them to do so, or the system owner says that you will provide this service so that we can make money...) The sysadmin may be an illusory power figure, the real power is (as always) where the money is that provides the wherewithal. I will not press this economic model further tonight. >A glance at comp.admin.policy will show you quite a few >sysadmins have the most amazing illusions about how "Usenet >(and even email!) is a privilege" which they can somehow keep the unwashed >masses of undergraduates from "abusing". Apparently they >haven't heard about public access sites, waffle and >related developments. They are going to have to wake up >and smell the coffee some day soon. The money will still come from somewhere, and the "gold rule" will still apply. The situation will only get worse as "public" users enter the net.fray. The burden of public sites may make the system break down in such a way that a population split becomes necessary. Take a look at the history of "FidoNET" to see what might happen. Common technology, disjoint populations. Take a look at cable television to see what might happen - generic technology (video), disjoint populations (different communities, different services). Finally, take a look at the human species - one species (biological technology) and disjoint populations (segregation by nearly any basis you care to mention :-( Usenet will evolve in a similar manner. A generic technology and disjoint populations. That fissioning is already in progress. Usenet will go on, but which "Usenet" will be the "real Usenet"? Greg -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun23.050938.29045@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >Albert's latest has sparked some hard thinking about my view of the net, >and this article represents my initial responses to changes in that >view. Since I wrote it as the changes were occurring, there is some >rambling in places. I hope that it can provide a springboard to the >discussion that Albert hopes for. [and later on] >Evolution is in effect and Albert's comments have effected some change >in my perceptions of Usenet. I still disagree with some of the positions >he holds, but I understand him more fully. Well, I can't ask for much more than that (at least not all at once :-) Your thoughtful comments are much appreciated (not just because of the change in your view and perceptions but especially the requested change in tone). I'm still waiting to see if others are interested in a wider discussion but meanwhile I will just comment on some of your points. > Oh please, at a certain point it becomes obvious that a >particular point of view is not being shared by those-who-count-in- >the-net (be they the mythical citizens or the sysadmins). When it >becomes obvious that some group is going to be emplaced despite all >sorts of procedural errors and serious concern over the content of the >group in the main hierarchies, all one can do is sigh and wait for a day >to come when it is appropriate to say "I told you so" (if appropriate). I don't want to start that debate again, but would just say the "certain point" should be when the vote results come in with two-thirds in favour and at least 100 more in favour than against despite various arguments strongly put by those voting no. Even more so when participation in both the debate and the vote is several times greater than usual. I am mentioning this because such debates do more than merely waste bandwidth. They focus attention on day to day trivialities for which procedures are ALREADY in place to deal with routinely, and thus PREVENT serious discussion on major issues like strategic planning for where the net is heading (both technically and "socially"). It is difficult to have the kind of discussion you now want, in an atmosphere dominated by continuous storms in teacups that only encourage people who might be interested in serious planning to avoid the groups where it should be taking place. > Usenet is certainly a prototype of some kind of electronic >community. When it started, the hard core computer types were the >creators of a new medium for themselves to use and play with each other. >As the academic networks grew, and the Internet became more and more >used, more and more users (who are NOT hard core computer types) have >entered into the net and forced it to adapt to their presence. Yes, one of the problems is that "hard core computer types" are not a very random cross-section and certainly not one especially noted for skills in establishing social institutions and structures for inter- personal relations - indeed there is an undesirably high percentage of "computer autistics". On the other hand, a common technical culture probably made it easier to get by than with a more heterogeneous group. I want to see this technology, or more advanced versions of it, available to and used by most of the literate population - or at least that increasingly large section of it that will have access to computers either at home or at work. That would amount to establishing another form of mass media, rivalling the print media, but far more open, flexible and above all interactive. Achieving that involves solving major technical problems, but also signifcant organizational/social problems as regards how the flood of contributions can be structured so that people can find what interests them and others can draw their attention to what they might be interested in. The crude structures evolved so far may have been adequate for the original community but they cannot last much longer. Usenet will either recognize that it is a separate entity from its sites and establish structures that can adapt to future requirements or it will be left behind in a technological backwater and die. > Usenet is currently in a content situation where there is a >rapid growth of special interest groups, all vying for market share, and >still thinking that the effective way is to get onto the broadcast bands >and be supported by the public wheal. Other groups are using similar >technologies (e.g. video/usenet) in directed ways (e.g. cable vs >broadcast / news vs mail) to find their markets. I think the future is likely to involve highly selective and customized news feeds (with intelligent adaptive customization). But at the same time the most efficient way to distribute news over a wide geographic area is likely to be some kind of broadcast - i.e. pumping it all out to everywhere so you can select locally (e.g. by satellite). > Then there is the FORM of Usenet. Sites in discreet situations, run >by folk caught in a mode of private service providers. New situations >are emerging and new administrative paradigms are needed to allow >effective management. However, the inertia of the given situation does >not allow the rapid development of techniques for quasi-public >information management - it is still being looked at as a set of >discreet sites. Yep. I think the net is still dominated by academic and research sites for which "news" is only a relatively minor part of their functions, with only a minority of public access sites that view themselves as "service providers". But either way, inertia results in the focus on discreet sites with inadequate organization for planning the development of Usenet itself, as an entity distinct from its sites. It just so happens that most user terminals are currently connected to a multi-user site. Already there are single-user sites and one day that might be the norm - whether they feed each other in a similar way to the present relaying of news, or whether they use satellite downlinks. (Both options seem feasible to me. ISDN in Australia is already cheap enough to relay 1 MB of news in 2 minutes for the cost of a local phone call and both traffic and rental charges can be expected to decline. On the other hand satellite receiver cards for 24 hour 9600 bps SCPC are already cheaper than high speed modems or ISDN cards, cheap window shade fresnel zones made from alfoil have been demonstrated as effective antennas for Direct Broadcast TV satellites in Europe and renting a satellite channel is dramatically cheaper than either ISDN rental or the leased lines currently used for the Internet or the costs of long distance PSTN calls.) We should be focussing on how users will want their news structured, not on "sites". > Yes and no. The models of site administration are still >holdovers from the Middle Ages! (or is it that they are just middle >aged? :-) A few large university sites may have a strong enough user >base to qualify as a democratic city-state, but most sites are still the >feudal demense of the administrators and the system owners. I think that's just transitional from the days when computers, and communications lines, were incredibly expensive so access to one was a "privilege". Attitudes change slower than reality, but they will HAVE to adapt or their users will setup their own sites. It's the same reactionary bullshit as the MIS departments that tried to stop PCs and it will be just as unsuccessful. > Here is the rub. If all the sysadmins walked out and went on >holiday for (lets say) three days, Usenet (and the Internet) would >collapse into chaos. The amount of work necessary to keep a site >running (Usenet facilities only) varies from minimal to full-time. It >is in NO CASE zero. Until the majority of sites can have usenet run >completely automagically (with zero human effort), the sysadmin is going >to be a necessary piece of the pie. As far as I can make out the Internet does not depend on site sysadmins but has its own paid staff with sites as customers like any other telecommunications corporation. Usenet however is a much more interesting phenomena, operating the kind of store and forward mail and news service that would "normally" require an expensive PTT operation, but using no paid staff and instead relying on the voluntary services of sysadmins or newsadmins to a large scale but still informal cooperative. Certainly that makes sysadmins or newsadmins an essential part of the setup (and gives them the decisive say on such things as how the net itself functions technically, establishment of feeds and so on), but it doesn't give them any more say than other users on how the information content is structured. After all it is the people who write messages that provide the information content on an unpaid volunteer basis (cf newsagency journalists and some SIG providers on commercial computer conferencing services) - and they aren't all admins. Although I agree it will be DIFFICULT to have Usenet run automagically (or with just NICs, not local admins at "sites") and it certainly is not happening now, I think it's going to be ESSENTIAL for reaching out really far beyond the current academic/research environment. The numbers of admins that would otherwise be needed just aren't available. Telephone operators were once essential with telephones but that COULD NOT continue with mass telephone penetration so they HAD to be replaced. The plans for replacing admins are already published (X400 and X500). The disparagement of those plans by admins (and software developers of the old school) are about as well founded and convincing as similar cries from other people with special skills that are being made obsolete, or who have designed technology that is becoming obsolete (but of course equally popular among their colleagues). "It's too big. It will never fly" :-) > This site runs pretty smoothly, but I still spend several hours >a day keeping it going. My upstream (currently) is a major node that >has several people devoting a fair amount of their ("spare" :-) time to >Usenet. If these folk decided to let Usenet "run itself" for any length >of time, a major portion of the net would collapse. If only the top 50 >(or so) sites of Brian Reid's "influence list" were to drop out, the net >would collapse. > > To be sure, something else (with a strong resemblence to Usenet) >would arise in a few days time, but the effect of the temporary collapse >would set in motion such changes that Usenet' (prime) would not be the >same as Usenet. It amazes me how little attention has been given to automating the chores, just to reduce them substantially, even though it would take a major effort to eliminate them completely. While I agree about the effort required to keep things running smoothly I disagree that there are still 50 sites without which the net would collapse. I suspect the net would merely partition (briefly) into a couple of hundred or so isolated sub-nets with an average of 100 to 200 sites in each and those would quickly reconnect with each other without any major upheaval. Just looking at the maps of connections makes it look as though the net is not all that redundantly connected. But don't forget those "paths" or "links" are merely configuration file entries, not physical equipment for communication channels that cannot be flexibly redeployed. The actual communication channels are provided by telecommunications companies (both PSTN and Internet) and do not depend on any Usenet sites. Every Internet site would be able to establish a link to any other Internet site immediately and ditto for every PSTN site (perhaps having to go further and at greater expense than the previous links, perhaps not). >[...] The development of the independent city-states is a >necessary step in the history of democratic development. And be >careful, it was the feudal barons, upset with the usurpation of their >feifdoms by King John that sparked the signing of The Magna Carta and >the establishment of Parliament. Only later, after the Universities had >nucleated the development of urban centers, were the barons forced to >add the House of Commons and create a true democratic situation. We could have an interesting discussion by pursuing these analogies further, but I fear it has already gone too far for purposes of news.admin and will leave that alone. > The money will still come from somewhere, and the "gold rule" >will still apply. The situation will only get worse as "public" users >enter the net.fray. The burden of public sites may make the system >break down in such a way that a population split becomes necessary. Well, I agree the "gold rule" will still apply in the sense that even when a new mass media is established, the rich and powerful will have a predominant influence through being able to hire writers and journalists whose "product" is more interesting and therefore more influential than many "raw" contributions. But I don't agree that the wealth required to own the physical means of transmission (whether "sites" or satellite channels) will be an important factor. Even now with broadcast media like newspapers and TV stations it isn't the printing and broadcasting equipment that is decisive but the ability to staff large organizations providing the "product". But why speak of the situation getting "worse"? That would only happen if NECESSARY CHANGES are not made to adapt to the DESIRABLE consequences of the "public" joining in. >Take a look at the history of "FidoNET" to see what might happen. Please summarize and/or tell me where to look. > Finally, take a look at the human species - one species >(biological technology) and disjoint populations (segregation by nearly >any basis you care to mention :-( > > Usenet will evolve in a similar manner. A generic technology >and disjoint populations. That fissioning is already in progress. > > Usenet will go on, but which "Usenet" will be the "real Usenet"? Again the pessimism! When you see a glass of water that is obviously half-full, do you describe it as "half-empty"? :-) The development of human society has seen the uniting of different populations as well as splitting within that. Usenet at present is uniting different technologies (e.g. FidoNet as well as the old Usenet) and different populations (from different countries and with different interests) and will also have to differentiate in its handling of that. Whether Usenet itself adapts, or splits, or dies one can be fairly certain that the "Matrix" of email links between people will only grow wider and not become compartmentalized into non-communicating subgroups. >[The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply> They threatened its life with a railway share... P.S. Warning (or hopeful sign :-) - I felt obliged to respond in view of previous comments but may not be able to keep this up due to other commitments. I hope others do. -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au
emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) (07/01/91)
Albert says: The crude structures evolved so far may have been adequate for the original community but they cannot last much longer. Usenet will either recognize that it is a separate entity from its sites and establish structures that can adapt to future requirements or it will be left behind in a technological backwater and die. This is of course the famous "death of the net" prediction, which appears every so often and can be conveniently ignored when it does. I challenge you to characterize the substantial efforts at self-organization which are evident on Usenet as "crude". Certainly they could be more effective, but there's an enormous richness and complexity about that ensure that the net is not going to just be a "technological backwater". (hmpth.) --Ed Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices" Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_ --Ed