Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!sequent!davest From: davest@sequent.UUCP Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software Message-ID: <2436@sequent.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Feb-87 16:29:41 EST Article-I.D.: sequent.2436 Posted: Wed Feb 18 16:29:41 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 04:38:24 EST References: <1808@hoptoad.uucp> <539@hao.UCAR.EDU> <1311@hplabsc.UUCP> Reply-To: davest@sequent.UUCP (Dave Stewart) Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR Lines: 44 In article <1311@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >We could do perfectly well by eliminating >the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have >a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout >of 50 or more. It is a matter of convenience and logistics that cause >us to have backbone sites. In recent years, the backbone topology has been argued as being best because the backbone sites were the ones willing to pay for more in long distance charges so that the rest of the net could have reduced costs. The bigger reality in my mind is that this topology reduces article propagation time. Consider a "truly anarchic" Usenet, full of nodes with fanout of three or less (remember, we can't require anything of anyone in AnarchNet) and with long distance charges as low as possible. The result would be that news would take much longer to get about. >In fact, I think the net would be *better* if we didn't have backbone >sites at all. It would certainly be more of an anarchy, which I would >view as a very positive move from the more-and-more legislated playground >for certain people that it has become... In its state of greatest anarchy, the net was about to collapse under its own weight. This was about two or three years ago. Major newsfeeds were dropping away because the cost was too great. I contend that a stronger backbone coalition has allowed Usenet to survive for as long as it has. The success of things like moderation, and newsgroup renaming can be attributed in part by the backbone administrators taking charge and turning things arround. >As far as using phone bill cost as a reason for anything, then my reply >is "then let's change the topology!". I don't think it is a good >justification for having more limited newsgroups, more moderation, or >whatever else is "in the works". "Let's change the topology" sounds like hippies of the 60's: "we don't like the establishment so let's do away with it". Changing the topology of the net would make for slower propagation, and those few sites willing to maintain long distance lines would not do so for long, due to 50 answers to "who was Sky King's sidekick" and light bulb jokes. -- David C. Stewart tektronix!sequent!davest Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. davest%sequent.UUCP@tektronix.TEK.COM