Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack
From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Message-ID: <2350@inco.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 88 16:46:26 GMT
References: <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> <2645@rpp386.UUCP> <56228@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA
Lines: 113

In article <56228@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

[Much gloominess regarding the passing of ihnp4]

>There are two main thrusts that I think need to be considered here. Both have
>been discussed many times in the past, privately, publicly, sometimes
>heatedly. But it's time to deal with some issues instead of just argue them.
>
>o Commercialization of USENET:
>  A major cornerstone of the future of USENET has to be services like uunet.

Agreed, except that the cost is too high currently. This is not uunet's
fault, the problem is telecomm costs. What this country needs is a good
cheap long distance phone system.

>o Everything for everybody: [excuse me, I need to get out my asbestos
>  crutches for this.....] The other realization that people have to make is
>  that USENET can no longer afford to be everything for everybodt. It is
>  simply TOO BIG. The traffic volume, and the attending E-mail, overwhelms
>  the system, and the system can't cope. It is time to take a close look at
>  USENET and what it ought to be, and then reshape the net to fit that
>  purpose.
>
>  This will set a number of people adrift. So be it. The net can't support
>  everyone anymore; it's time to realize that and do some rational surgery
>  now rather than have the net die of obesity and lose it for everyone later.
>
>  I think it is time for USENET to diet.
>
>  USENET's focus started as, and it a good degree always has been, Unix and
>  computers (more or less in that order). That's what USENET is best at as
>  well. The other stuff, it's nice, as long as you can afford it, but
>  without the computer stuff, USENET wouldn't have ever gotten started.
>
>  Here's my proposal of cuts. Guaranteed, I'll bet, to piss off everyone in
>  some way or another. But when radical surgery is necessary, these things
>  happen. For USENET to survive, we need to cut:
>
>  o comp.binaries.all
>  o comp.sources.all, EXCEPT Unix sources.
>  o talk.all
>  o soc.all
>  o rec.all -- maybe keep rec.arts.sf-lovers.

Shouldn't there be a smiley face after this line?

>  o misc.all -- look at case by case.
>
>  And if, when that's done, we still haven't cut enough, cut the
>  microcomputer groups free.
>
>The need is to bring USENET volume back down to tolerable levels -- which
>I'm somewhat arbitrarily building a cutoff level of a megabyte of news a
>day. About 1/3 of current levels. 
>
>This is going to be painful. For me, personally, it's especially painful
>because if you look closely, I've targetted just about every USENET group
>that means anything to me. But these are not times to be selfish. These are
>times of survival. Which I hope sinks in around the net. But I doubt it.

This strikes me as a panic reaction. Why don't we wait and see what impact
the disappearance of ihnp4 actually has?

Although the Usenet started out as a way for Unix techies to exchange
information, it has evolved beyond that. It is (as far as I know) the *only*
international communications medium available to the average person.
(I mean, how else can you meet people who live on the other side of the
planet?) While the exchange of technical information will always be an
important part of the net, it shouldn't be the only function.

Chuq's approach to the survival of the net represents an attitude which
I think is far too prevalent. "The net is strained: we have to reduce
the amount of inessential information." Why not try to *improve* the
system instead of accepting its deficiencies? C news is a step in this
direction: let's get a beta version of it out. (Henry? Geoff? Help!)

Before I get flamed too badly, let me say that I realize that there are
real constraints on systems out there, in terms of processing capability,
disk space, and communication bandwidth. I also realize that there *are*
people who are trying to improve things, but the efforts are disjointed
and unorganized.

Maybe it's time for people who care about the net, the *whole* net
and not just the technical groups, to get together and try to solve
some of these problems.

And before I'm accused of being a Pollyanna, let me toss out a couple
of suggestions:

1) Require that each site that accepts a feed to pass the groups it accepts
   on to at least one other *long-distance* site. (Please think hard about
   this one before flaming. Darwinism at its purest.) Obviously, this
   produces far more connectivity than is necessary. The exception
   would be sites that pay for their feed. And no, I have no idea how
   this could be enforced, except by the upstream sites cutting off
   slackers.

2) Store the articles on disk in a compressed (possibly batched or tarred)
   form. Hack the newsreader software to accomodate it.

3) Get rid of uncompressed transmission for both news and mail. We would
   probably have to tack on some form of ECC.

These are random suggestions. There are undoubtedly difficulties with
all of them. Point them out. Try to improve on them.

If you have suggestions for methods of improving Usenet, please send them
to me by e-mail. I will occasionally post a summmary to the net. Please be
specific and realistic. We have to work within the constraints of 
(soon-to-be-)available technology. Please do *not* suggest killing off
newsgroups you don't like, or posters you don't like.

Dave Mack