Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!usenix!ellie
From: ellie@usenix.UUCP (Ellie Young)
Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix
Subject: USENIX Board Studies UUCP
Keywords: USENIX Association
Message-ID: <310@usenix.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 90 20:20:10 GMT
Organization: Usenix Association Office, Berkeley
Lines: 48


UUCP Project Draws Strong Response

     As discussed in the last issue of ;login: and in this newsgroup, USENIX is studying uucp to see
whether we can help promote better communication, in a literal sense, by
activities which might range from standardization up to a possible sponsored
implementation.

     We have received more than 30 mail messages on this topic from Europe,
Australia, and the U.S.  Many of these were cheers and bravos, and most
requested further information.  A number were from people who were actively
working on uucp itself, or on programs that were similar to, or ``better''
than uucp.  In particular, there was relevant work going on at AT&T, GNU, in
Australia with ACSnet, in Great Britain with UKUUCP, and at Prime Computer in
Australia, with MYL.  A program called PP, which supports numerous protocols,
is in the beta stage in Great Britain, and will be ``openly available.''
Finally, Rick Adams, has been doing advanced CPR on uucp for years to keep
uunet running smoothly, and has suggested that he might make this available.

     There appear to be three major decision areas (battlegrounds?).  One is
technical - what do we want, given that we can't have everything.  Some people
wrote and suggested that using anything other than streams and TLI was
senseless and short-sighted; others wrote that the use of streams and TLI
would lock us out of a large number of smaller and older machines, and should
be avoided at all cost.  I personally would like to have some graphic (X-ish)
administration interface so I can add a phone number without screwing up the
company-wide system for days; but this limits our communication scope.

     The next set of decisions has to do with the distribution of the system;
will it be free, or merely cheap.  The majority think it should be distributed
in source code; a vocal minority paint a picture of a totally snarled net
created by enthusiastic hackery by hundreds of monkeys at their terminals.
Some think it should be licensed, others totally free.

     The related problem is how to get it done; should USENIX endorse,
support, initiate, or purchase the work?  There are a lot of touchy issues
here, including what the cost would be, how it would be recovered (hold on to
your wallets, members!), and how USENIX would ensure that it got its money's
worth (ever try to manage a software project with volunteers?).

     The USENIX board of directors will be taking this topic up again at its
meeting in Washington, D.C.  We shall report on the outcome of that meeting in
the next issue of ;login: and on the net. I haven't really done justice in this summary to
some of the lengthy, thoughtful comments that we have received; thank you for
the encouragement and the information.  Further comments and suggestions can
be sent to scj@usenix.org or discussed with other USENIX board members.

                                                                 Steve Johnson