Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Usenet is not a BBS
Keywords: KLANG KLANG KLANG
Message-ID: <250E77F2.10787@ateng.com>
Date: 13 Sep 89 15:53:21 GMT
References: <19611@gryphon.COM> <1989Sep11.125116.18148@gec-mi-at.co.uk> <250D145B.4189@ateng.com> <1989Sep12.124629.27897@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 32

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