Xref: utzoo bionet.general:440 bionet.molbio.bio-matrix:103
Newsgroups: bionet.general,bionet.molbio.bio-matrix
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu!steeg
From: steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: BioNet shutdown
Message-ID: <89Jul11.151538edt.10783@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Summary: Services can be replaced. 
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
References: <23066@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <89Jul8.125846edt.10744@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 89 15:15:35 EDT




  A few days ago I posted a note in which I criticized and lamented
the possible loss of the BioNet facilities.  In particular, I
discussed the importance of the communications resources currently
made available by the Bionet, and how unfortunate it would be -- for
individual scientists and for the state of biological research -- if
this conduit for international and interdisciplinary communication
were to vanish.

  I hope I did not convey the impression that the communications
activities on Bionet -- the e-mail and the newsgroups -- could not or
would not be replaced.  In theory, nobody should lose any
communications functions permanently, though, in practice, there could
be severe disruptions, and it was this unnecessary disruption that
concerned me.

 In particular, the Bionet users should be aware that**:

 1) Usenet is a self-supporting communications net.

 2) The European and Australian bboard systems that receive Bionet
messages pay for their own access.

 3) Several of the biological science journals post their tables of
contents to Bionet free of charge.

  Therefore, several key communications links and functions are paid
for by parties other than Bionet.  Moreover, there is no *technical*
reason why these functions couldn't be handled by the Usenet and
bboards directly.  My point in my previous letter was simply that
technical feasibility does not always imply simple, efficient, and
timely implementation.  With such a large distributed network, serving
many people (of varying computer proficiency) with many functions,
there are likely to be delays and glitches.

  My gut feeling on this was: If it ain't broke don't fix it.  The
"activation energy" needed to carry the transition through is likely
to be very high.  Who needs it?!
 

  But, if this transition must happen, let's make it as smooth as
possible.  Perhaps administrators of the various subnets and bulletin
boards will post some hints/instructions.  As for the software
resources of Bionet, perhaps the managers can arrange for some space
on the Stanford Sumex machine (Stanford U. is geographically close to
Bionet's home), so that users can have ftp access to contributed
software.  This would ease the transition.

  Thanks for your attention (sorry for posting such long notes!).

 -- Evan

**I am fairly confident, though not 100% certain, of these claims about
the networks.  My understanding of the workings was corroborated by
several people well-versed in computer bboards and networks.  I do not
work for Bionet, the company that manages it, nor any competitors.
And, of course, I do not speak for the University of Toronto.




-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg