Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!oliveb!intelca!cem
From: cem@intelca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.mail,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Re: abuse of the net
Message-ID: <51@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 11:39:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.51
Posted: Thu May 22 11:39:13 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 20:26:52 EDT
References: <779@hoptoad.uucp> <218@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> <2206@uwmacc.UUCP> <317@sdcarl.UUCP> <2021@hammer.UUCP> <3710@sun.u <2044@hammer22 May 86 15:39:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 23
Xref: decwrl net.micro:13838 net.mail:1652 net.news.group:5012

[Sorry net.micro, I'll keep it short.]
>
> ... Lot's of stuff about how the net is failing and what to do about it
>     edited out. [Ed Note: Most of the suggestions are already implemented]...
> 
> I've seen three followups to my article, none of which have given
> any reasons why other machines couldn't set up their own network.
> tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy

Whereupon we come to the previous statement. Mr Seifert (aka snoopy)
there are two reasons why networks for micros aren't used. 
    1.) Very few people have a phone line available to dedicate to 
        network transmissions. (our uucp line is almost always in use)
    2.) There is no standard and free package available for a critical
	mass of microcomputers. (If Fidonet was brought up on CP/M and
	apple machines it would have a good chance here).

--Chuck McManis
-- 
                                            - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - 
{ihnp4,fortune}!dual\                     All opinions expressed herein are my
        {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem       own and not those of my employer, my
 {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/                     friends, or my avocado plant. :-}