Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin Subject: Re:ply to devil's advocate on possibility of useful news improvement Message-ID: <279@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 3-Jul-87 08:18:32 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.279 Posted: Fri Jul 3 08:18:32 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 13:09:24 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 129 Keywords: Bozo BARNETTnews incomprehensible Summary: bedeviled by the devils advocate? Xref: mnetor news.groups:1154 news.misc:674 news.stargate:221 news.sysadmin:266 news.admin:596 In article <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >Of > >course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to > >make the same old mistakes run faster. Much more interesting would > >be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty. This would yield > >a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues > >of the old Usenet. Of course, as always, connectivity would be a > >problem. > > My initial reaction was to ignore the message. But I'll play Devil's > advocate. > > Let me try to understand your "WEBBERnews" scheme. Actually, what you wrote seems to be more your pipe dream than mine. Let us give credit where it is due and call your version BARNETTnews. > Now you tell me: > I have to maintain two different news facilities simultaneously. > This means duplicate spool directories, executables, news readers, etc. > Twice as much work, plus potentially twice as much disk space, etc. Hmmm. Your system doesn't sound very well thought out. Let us start with a basic. As long as two systems understand the same format, they can share data. It looks like WEBBERnews would run optimally when a bit more data was available than the current system tracks, but there are reasonable ways of handling being stuck with neighbors that insist on using BARNETTnews. > My Reaction: > Well, that is a lot of extra work. But the gods say it must be > worth it. Yeah. But people liked the name BARNETT, what can I say? > You tell me: > No articles from USENET appear in WEBBERnews. Why on earth would I tell you any thing as silly as that. Am I pulling your leg or something? The contents of articles is a constant for any system. There is nothing in the USENET headers that is so obnoxious that it contaminates the rest of the message. > My Reaction: > Well, it would be faster if there were no articles. > By the way, how did you test out WEBBERnews? How long have you > been using it and under what conditions have you tested it? (assuming > there is no compatibility with Rev B news) Oh, I see. You > haven't *really* tested it. Ah, you only use tested software. That explains why it took so long for your site to get on the net. Then again perhaps you have the impression that it is better to implement code first and then see if anyone is interested in it rather than try and find out why people are not already using something similar. Incidently, so far all I have been able to determine is that no one previously had looked at the idea in much detail. > You tell me: > No article in WEBBERnews appears in USENET. Now posting into USENET from WEBBERnews is easy (although who knows what bizzareness I will encounter with your BARNETTnews system). > My Reaction: > Okay - let me get this straight. We have these two different > bulletin board systems, each with different newsgroups, > conversation chains, kill files, etc. I would need two > different news readers, archivers, etc. Everyone is using the > old system, and *magically* everyone starts using WEBBERnews, > because there are no articles posted. > > I think I am lost already. I thought so much earlier. Why would one want to use different newsgroups etc? From a technical point of view, it doesn't matter what the net carries. Any group under WEBBERnews would make sense under traditional USENET instead. Oddly enough, if enough sites were running WEBBERnews, the remaining sites would also benefit even before they converted. > You tell me: > The two news systems are incompatible. That is - they store news > in different formats, reside in different directories, use > different means of receiving/sending news, keep track of duplicate > articles using different systems. Therefore we need two different > sets of inews, mail forwarding systems, history files, etc. No. They are incompatible : A WEBBERnews site communicating with another WEBBERnews site is more efficient than a WEBBERnews site communicating with an un-updated USENET site. > My Reaction: > Boy! Bob - you must be some hotshot programmer! How many years > did you spend doing this? All my life. I don't waste past experience. > You might tell me: > The good stuff would be posted to both groups. Especially > sources. But since WEBBERnews and USENET are incompatible, this > would mean duplicate copies of all of the large postings. > And since WEBBERnews doesn't have the silly moderated distinction, Actually, the moderation distinction is not a big deal to track. It is just that it doesn't buy a more privilaged position than non-moderated. > it will be bigger and cost more than old Rev B. And I would have > to support BOTH during the conversion. Hmmm. Do you still run version A? Are you some kind of museum site that runs every version of every news system in existance to make it easier to check on backward compatibility or something? > Mr. Webber, I find YOU "quite incomprehensible" Somehow I suspected that. > -- > "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." > -- > Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP) Ah gee, you are too hard on yourself. After all, you knew absolutely nothing about what you were talking about and you still handled the conversation better than the backbone sites. --- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)