Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!codas!killer!billw From: billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) Newsgroups: news.newsites Subject: Re: Map addition for u.usa.ny.1, a new site: "entire". Message-ID: <2637@killer.UUCP> Date: 2 Jan 88 04:24:27 GMT References: <3121@entire.xerox.com> <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> <2613@killer.UUCP> <1788@epimass.EPI.COM> Reply-To: billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) Organization: HASA Lines: 49 In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>>Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP >>>map. In article <2613@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (yes, that's me) writes: >>What an incredibly obnoxious statement. The mere fact that someone runs UNIX >>on a small computer condemns them forever to forego representation in the >>UUCP map? In article <1788@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Bill, I'm sorry you took offense. But the UUCP map is already too >big for PCs to deal with. Again, there's that attitude I railed against. Who says the UUCP map is already too big for PCs? I've known a one-man consulting firm with a PC AT that had nearly 400 megs of disk space. That's more than some particularly small-time VAXen I've used. >As for little computers owned by individuals: if UUPC becomes wildly >popular, we're stll going to run up against a wall at some point >where we can't have everybody on the map. Since the domain >registration fee was instituted, I've been waiting for the other shoe >to drop (that is, a fee for having a site appear in the map). >Unfortunately, the fee currently goes to the wrong people, since >the major expense generated by sites appearing on the UUCP map is >the cost of sending comp.mail.maps around the world. Seems like some >of the fees should subsidize uunet and the European backbone; it's >hard to see how to distribute revenue to someone else. UUPC is the farthest thing from my mind. I am talking about small computers -- "PC"s -- that run REAL (well, sorta) UNIX. At a place like MIT, there are a zillion Sun workstations, any of which can snarf news via NNTP. Why map them? Internet mail works fine in such cases. A small company that I won't name is only reachable via UUCP but also has a zillion networked Suns. Don't map them, add two or three lines to your map entry using the pathalias LAN notation. Now, the flip side: there are zillions of small organizations out there that have one single PC running UNIX which serves as their sole link to the outside world. Map them! Map them! I certainly prefer sending mail to user@obscure-site.UUCP than toiling for an hour trying to come up with a path to obscure-site-neighbor. Entire's case is.. strange. My impression is that Entire is a seperate company that plans to harbor itself under the xerox.com domain for mail benefits. If that is the case, I can see a seperate map entry for a seperate entity. If, on the other hand, it is a subsidiary, then let it be handled by the xerox.com gateway. -- Bill Wisner / {cbosgd,codas,ihnp4}!killer!billw / billw@oberon.LCS.MIT.EDU If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.