Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: Date: 18 Jul 90 15:30:17 GMT References: <1990Jul16.202721.271@chinet.chi.il.us> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 50 In article karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: > Why is it always _presumed_ that old, out-of-date things must be > perpetuated? Well, come up with a new, up-to-date, alternative that works as well, *AND* is as convenient as a plain-jane UUCP connection. Then people will stop trying to perpetuate the old stuff. It's more hassle to get properly DNSified, and a plane-jane UUCP connection is already more hassle than FAX. > Or do you instead go > looking for newer technology, better gas mileage, safer passenger > restraints, more functional cockpit gadgetry, and so on? Newer doesn't mean safer. One of the reasons I got my current car (a Mazda 323, '89 model year) was because it didn't have fancier passenger restraints. Just simple 3-point belts on all 4 seats. I doubt I'll be able to get such a reliable system in my next car. > What is it about using computers makes people think this way? Nothing. Some people are neither fanatic xenophiles nor xenophobes. > The only reason that fax can be said to work better than email is that > the underlying transport, the raw phone network, has its operation > ENFORCED by people who know what they're doing, and they're damn well > accountable when it doesn't work. The underlying transport for UUCP is the exact same raw phone network. It's not the transport mechanism that makes the difference, it's the addressing: you don't have to know two names for a machine (UUCP name and phone number) to connect to it, and you don't have to ask permission of someone at the other end to make a call. > PS- Yes, I saw the CACM article on fax -vs- email. I wasn't > impressed. The idea of converting all email systems to use > phone-number addressing is revolting. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting making that alternative available. > you just tell the phone network where > you want to go, and don't have a clue on how you get there I guess you missed hearing about "equal access". > !-paths suck. !-paths (a) work, and (b) save money. The user doesn't see them, but I'd much rather send mail for "splut.conmicro.com" to "sugar.hackercorp.com" via a local phone call than to "uunet.uu.net". Pure DNS mail, for a UUCP site, is like making all your phone calls via your long-distance carrier. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.