Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!husc6!Diamond!mlandau From: mlandau@Diamond.BBN.COM (Matt Landau) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: newsgroup reorg Message-ID: <687@Diamond.BBN.COM> Date: Sun, 7-Sep-86 23:23:41 EDT Article-I.D.: Diamond.687 Posted: Sun Sep 7 23:23:41 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 07:20:31 EDT References: <216@bridge2.UUCP> <676@bcsaic.UUCP> Reply-To: mlandau@slate.BBN.COM (Matt Landau) Distribution: net Organization: BBN Labs, Cambridge, MA Lines: 114 Summary: Usenet is a privilege, not a right! In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) FLAMES WILDLY: >In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: >> >> [rick's reply amounted to "The backbone isn't going to carry everything. >> You're free to start a mailing list or drop off the net." --ML] >> >>Great attitude, huh? Almost no one reading this article is going to know who I am (which is the way I like it), but I've been quietly on Usenet for almost seven years, since its early days, and watched it grow from a small handful of machines and a few dozen readers to thousands of machines and tens of thousands of readers. I'd *really* hoped to avoid getting involved in this flaming war over the impending newsgroup reorganization, but it seems that as the net has grown, some people have forgotten a few basic facts about it. It comes down to this: The only thing that makes Usenet possible is the time and money of a relatively small collection of sites and people who do the work of writing news software, who try to track down and solve problems in the network, and who pay the (often enormous) phone bills to ship *YOUR* newsgroups around the country and around the world. Nothing says these people HAVE to provide this service for you. They do it because they think that Usenet is a Good Thing. They do it in spite of the headaches involved in trying to coordinate a network this large and amorphous. They do it in spite of the time it takes in addition to their real jobs. (You don't think anyone gets paid to keep Usenet running, do you?) They do it in spite of the aggravation they must get trying to explain to their management why their employer is spending hundreds (in some cases, thousands) of dollars a month to send information about nude beaches, bad jokes, recreational drugs, and Hasidic bus drivers around the globe. They do it in spite of people who flame them for not doing all of this exactly the way the flamer thinks it should be done. The single most important thing that people seem to have forgotten is that without the efforts of Rich Adams, Gene Spafford, Mark Horton, and others like them (other backbone admins, please don't take offense at not being listed explicitly), *there wouldn't be a Usenet for you to flame on or about!* USENET IS NOT A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. IT'S A PRIVILEGE MADE POSSIBLE BY A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD TO KEEP IT ALL RUNNING. I, for one, appreciate the efforts these people put forth. You should too. > >This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. I am posting this follow-up to ask >two questions, both of Mr. Rick Adams and the readership of Usenet. > > 1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this > network with such a heavy hand? Arpanet is owned by > DOD, but Usenet is not owned by anyone. See above. Rick is the news admin for seismo.css.gov, one of the backbone news sites. Seismo provides news and mail service for a substantial part of the net, either directly or indirectly. (How many sites does seismo feed these days, Rick, and how much UUCP mail do you route for people?) You're right, Usenet is not owned by anyone. Essentially, each machine is free to do as it damn well pleases as far as passing or not passing on certain groups. So why flame at Rick and seismo for doing with their machine as they see fit? Because it's inconvenient for you? Sorry, but it's more inconvenient for them to keep up the status quo. Since they do the work and pay the bills, they win. > > 2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what > is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil > communication? If it happens to net.rec.skydive, it > can also happen to anyone else's group. > "Legitimate, civil communication"? Give me a break. Freedom of expression is guaranteed you by the US Constitution. Freedom of expression over an electronic network maintained and financed by someone is not. If you're unhappy about a particular group being dropped by the backbone, you have two choices: (1) Start a mailing list. If there's really enough traffic, maybe the backbone sites will reconsider a newsgroup later. Then again, maybe not. (2) Set up your own side-net by getting all the people who are interested in your pet newsgroup to carry it among themselves. In at least one case (net.rec.drugs), I believe this has been done successfully. Anyone can start a newsgroup. If the backbone sites don't want carry it, it simply means you have to set up your own news links and pay your own long-distance bills. That's not NEARLY as hard as what the backbone admins have to do. >I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice >long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. You'd better hope Rick doesn't take you seriously. If he and the other backbone administrators WERE to drop off the net, Usenet wouldn't last long. If you're *really* unhappy about the way these people are handling things, volunteer your site as a Usenet backbone and take on some of the workload. I've heard Rick and others publicly state that they'd welcome anyone who wants to become part of the backbone. But until you assume some of the responsibilities, you've got no right to complain about the way these people try to maintain the Net. -- Matt Landau BBN Laboratories, Inc. mlandau@diamond.bbn.com 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge MA 02238 ...harvard!diamond.bbn.com!mlandau (617) 497-2429