Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!ucdavis!infopro!david
From: david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Summary: wait and see, UUNET notes, serious use of rec groups
Message-ID: <47@infopro.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 88 07:38:47 GMT
References: <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> <2645@rpp386.UUCP>
Organization: Where the hell is Rescue, California?
Lines: 46

In article <2645@rpp386.UUCP>, jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> USENET has been mortally wounded with the passing of ihnp4.  From where
> I am sitting the prognosis is not good.  How many hundreds or thousands
> of systems will now be stranded?  And how long before the increased
> pressure of cummulative cruft on the remaining sites forces those machines
> to also pass by the wayside?

I think that rumors of Usenet's death have been, as usual, greatly
exaggerated -- not to single jfh out. The ihnp4 node, as well as other
backbone nodes, simply helped messages pass *more quickly* due to their 
central location. Remember when ihnp4 was *the* major backbone node? When
it had problems, communications were slowed all over the country (similes
to the Illinois central office fire, including location, can be made). But
even granting the disappearance of ihnp4, cbosgd, and others to come, it
should be recognized that the net is now *larger*. This means it's more
distributed, and LESS prone to failure due to one or a dozen backbone
sites going away.

This brings us to another point: UUNET serves many fine purposes, but if
*everyone* were to hook to UUNET, we wouldn't have a network, just a file
server. I believe that it's the smaller sites that want Usenet that will
continue to keep it alive. I foresee regional backbone sites, perhaps
with Trailblazers, that can hook both to UUNET and also to other regional
backbones and local feeds. Perhaps the loss of a few major nodes will make
the net healthier in the long run.

But I don't think that cutting off certain groups, just because they're
not UNIX-oriented, will serve the purposes that have kept Usenet going.
For example, what do these groups have in common: rec.autos, rec.aviation,
rec.bicycles, rec.boats, rec.guns, rec.motorcycles, rec.scuba, rec.skiing,
and rec.skydiving? All are presumably "recreational" groups and thereby
expendable by some standards, but all ALSO can be of real use in *saving
lives* through serious discussion of technique in these disciplines.

It may be true by some standards that Usenet has been getting a "free 
ride" from some sites.  But everyone on the net depends on the good will 
of others: whether it's a feed, some source code, an answer to a 
question, or just someone else to talk to.  That's the beauty of the 
net.  Instead of looking to make every last megabyte pay for itself, 
perhaps we should remember how much good will we've generated.  And the 
heck with JJ and his ilk.  
-- 
David Fiedler {ames,attmail,hplabs,pyramid,ucdavis}!infopro!david
USMail: InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220, Rescue CA 95672 Phone: 916/677-5870
"Never believe anything you read on Usenet"