Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!gatech!mcdchg!heiby
From: heiby@mcdchg.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Message-ID: <283@mcdchg.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Mar-87 11:33:36 EST
Article-I.D.: mcdchg.283
Posted: Thu Mar 26 11:33:36 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Mar-87 07:08:04 EST
References: <1369@ncc.UUCP> <748@xanth.UUCP>
Reply-To: heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL
Lines: 26

In article <748@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>Stargate doesn't want to be
>responsible for the contents of my or anyone else's flames, either, I bet,
>so common carrier is the only safe way to go.

Sorry, Kent.  You're wrong (at least) here.  Everything I've heard about
Stargate, including at a couple of open Usenix Board meetings and articles
in ";login:" indicate that Stargate does NOT want to be "safe".  They want
to be *valuable*.  The last thing I need is a high bandwidth trash chute
into my machine.  Sure as anything, the chute will soon fill to capacity,
and I can't afford the disk space for it all.  I have enough trouble with
the space news already takes on my machine.  I have heard at least one
member of the Stargate team say that if Stargate were to end up as a "common
carrier", he wouldn't be interested in the project, either.  I would love to
have someone else weed out the utter crap, flames, repeats, etc. and give me
timely, reliable access to what's left.

I believe that there are still questions to be answered by the Stargate
team, but I don't think the "common carrier" question is one of them.
It has been answered quite well, already.  I'm willing to give them some
more time to work things out and detail their plans before criticizing
them.
-- 
Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP	Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.os.unix
Motorola Microcomputer Division (MCD), Schaumburg, IL
"There are only two of them that I think are idiots." Brian Reid