Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!gds
From: gds@sri-spam.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix,news.groups
Subject: Re: Request for special USENIX Meeting
Message-ID: <10009@sri-spam.istc.sri.com>
Date: Sun, 5-Apr-87 15:46:56 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-spam.10009
Posted: Sun Apr  5 15:46:56 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Apr-87 23:35:32 EST
References: <1486@hplabsc.UUCP> <304@desint.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 120
Xref: utgpu comp.org.usenix:108 news.groups:614
Summary: some comments

I promise -- this won't be long.

> Geoff Kuenning
>> Dave Taylor

> Here's a fact for you:  you can register for a uucp domain name for $50
> a year.  Here's another fact:  you can't connect to usenet without a
> modem that costs at least $150, and a phone line that costs you at least
> $8 per month (true, you can share the line, but on a time basis Usenet
> clearly should be allocated most of the costs).
> 
> In light of those costs, and the cost of the computer you need to read news,
> I don't think it's really very reasonable to complain about a fee for
> registering in a database.

$50 is not that much.  Also, you don't have to register -- you can send
your uucp paths around, and wish repliers good luck.  However, I think
there is some concern that certain sites will withdraw, or refuse to
participate in usenet if the "costs" of joining are made visible to
those who are less likely to pay, in light of the current SNR.

> > Similarly, it is quite disturbing that the UUCP Mapping Project...
> > [is]  expecting quite a bit of money from people.  This is
> > *not* at all in the best interests of the membership.
> 
> The hell it's not.  What you miss is that some of us use this network
> for business that matters to us monetarily.  I am perfectly willing
> to pay $1000/yr (hear that, Mark?  that's not a typo;  a thousand
> dollars is CHEAP) if it will give me reliable electronic
> mail.

"reliability" of uucp mail will not be accomplished by using domain
names, I fear.

I would appreciate it if one of the members of the UUCP Project would
comment on what the charges they levy will be used for.  I am not
complaining -- I'd just like to hear how they intend to spend the money,
if any are willing to comment.  Does it go straight into their pockets
as compensation for services rendered?  Is it being used to pay for the
hotline, or disk space to compose uucp maps, or computer time to develop
software?  (Apologies if this has been discussed before -- I don't
follow usenet as closely as I used to.)

> > I think a special meeting of the USENIX Association is in order,

Perhaps a BOF at the next Usenix?  (Unfortunately I don't think I'll be
there, unless I can find some funds to pay for it.)

> > Further examples of the perversion of the Unix community...
> > Five years or so ago when I started reading Usenet, it was
> > a free-wheeling teleconferencing system, quite fun, quite strange, and
> > generally, a good way to spend a small bit of my time.
> >  In the past
> > few years, however, a so-called Backbone Cabal has arisen that has
> > more-or-less taken over the network and imposed their own ideas and
> > beliefs upon it.

> Wrong again.  It was by vote.

Five years ago, there were about 100 sites, maybe, and far less volume.
Phone time, disk space, etc. were fare more tolerable.  However, now
that we are bogged down in volume, the people who must foot the largest
% of the bill must be able to justify the costs, or reduce them if
possible.  I don't agree with all the things the "backbone cabal" has
done but realize that it was either that, or they would leave.  What
would happen if the "backbone" left is debatable.  I don't think usenet
would grind to a halt -- in fact, I suspect there are other "backbones"
out there which would carry the news.  The propagation might be slower,
though.  Or maybe not.  Who knows?

However, I don't recall any votes that put the "backbone cabal" in
charge.  Nor do I recall any voting for general usenet policy.  The only
votes seem to be for what newsgroups to create, and where to put them.
This is not to say that they are unrightfully in charge, because the
fact that they are paying a certain % for running the net should give
them that much of a % in saying how it should be run.  I'm just trying
to get terminology straight.

(For the record, I would like to see usenet run more democratically, but
this does not seem possible, because no one would agree on a set of laws
which everyone could abide by.)

> [with respect to "forcing" (Dave's words) out-of-date sites to update:]
> > Totally regardless of whether they are actually willing and able to
> > do it...If they don't change, tough luck.  Let 'em die.

Dave is talking about the conversion from 2.10.3 to 2.11.whatever, with
respect to moderated group handling.  Geoff is talking about no longer
complying with A news, or some other outdated news (2.10 maybe).
There's a big difference.  I imagine at sites where people post to
moderated groups, the SA's will get tired of hearing complaints about
being unable to post to the moderated group, and will put the patches
in.  2.11 is not necessary for normal reading/posting/replying, though.
I don't see anything generally incompatible with recent news versions
(more recent than 2.10.1 perhaps).  However, backwards-compliance can't
be done forever.  You have to draw the line somewhere.  I would hope
that those sites which are running A news would upgrade so they could
take advantage of the latest features.

> > The crux, here, is that there is no reason why we can't have either
> > free or minimal cost systems...If there is interest I can outline solutions
> > ...that would involved *zero* cost to the end user...

> My perception is that every single person working on either Stargate
> or the UUCP project would be OVERJOYED to have you volunteer you help.
> However, I suspect most would appreciate it if you took the time
> to investigate all the aspects of the situation before offering
> an unschooled opinion.

It'll never be free to distribute posted articles.
It'll never be free to forward other people's mail.
Whatever you come up with will cost as much as it takes to distribute
which are the best point-to-point uucp connections, and what the domain
names of those uucp nodes are.  If this could be made cheaper than the
current cost of registering names in the UUCP domain, plus the current
cost of distributing the current maps, that would be good.

Oh well, this was a little longer than I'd intended.

--gregbo