Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!charon!cscbrkac From: cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: The death of USENET Summary: Some more of the ol' back-n-forth Message-ID: <3196@charon.unm.edu> Date: 16 Jun 88 05:20:53 GMT Reply-To: cscbrkac@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) Organization: Studio Nibble -- One Tree Hill, New Mexico Lines: 100 >> ...What I (and presumably others) would object to is the *forced* removal of >> these {rec,soc,talk} groups across the entire net in one fell swoop. > > What makes you think that others share this opinion? Are you so presumptuous > as to believe that you represent others? I don't think the presumption that others share my views on this subject is particularly out-of-line. If you think otherwise, well then why not hop on over to soc.singles or rec.arts.sf-lovers or talk.bizarre (oh, ESPECIALLY talk.bizarre!) and let them know how you feel -- that their groups should be taken away from the entire net community so *your* sysadmin doen't "have" to carry them anymore. I think you'll get a feel for how many others "share this opinion". >> The problem is not that the non-comp groups (or non-UNIX groups, for the >> ultra-purists out there) are "wasting space," it is that there are sysadmins >> ...who are not willing to drop a group or class of groups unless the entire >> net drops it. > > Oh,you see the problem.. Very kind of you to share it with those of us who > can't see it ourselves. The crux of the situation is that while certain > groups are not considered to be useful,they are part of Usenet,and as such > should be carried.. Downstream sites have the right to receive as much news > as they wish. This is exactly what I am arguing against. No site should feel "obligated" to carry anything. Downstream sites have the "right" to recieve *whatever they can find a feed for*...but your site is not obligated to provide that feed! If you don't feel that soc.motss or rec.music.misc or is "useful" by whatever definition you choose to use, then by all means, drop the damn group and get on with your life. The people that *do* think it's useful will carry on without you. But: >> ...dynamiting all but the technical groups and forcing those of us who want >> the rest of them to rebuild them from scratch would be an amazing abuse of >> power on the part of the backbone. > > Sure,an abuse of power.. Like AT&T's decision to stop pass through mail was > an incredible abuse of power. I can't imagine someone telling me that I have > to give everyone in my neighborhood a free ride to work just because I happen > to drive a passenger van. Then when I balk, I am abusing my power as a van > driver. They pay the costs,they have the power. Read my original post again, *carefully* this time. Anyone (including the backbone) can carry or not carry *anything they like*. If the backbone decides to no longer carry a group, they have every right to do so -- I have no argument with that at all. What they do NOT have a right to do is unilaterally rmgroup an active group FOR THE ENTIRE NET, which is the action that *I've* seen discussed. If other sites wish to keep carrying a group that the backbone considers "useless" they should be allowed to do so. The relative success of the alt subnet proves that this is a viable alternative. >> Do you expect your neighborhood association to keep the kinds of people *you >> personally don't like associating with* from associating witoh others in >> your neighborhood? No? Then why do you expect the net as a whole to remove >> the groups that *you personally* don't want to carry? > > The principle you expound self righteously cuts both ways. Does one put up > with graffiti artists and vandals trashing a neighborhood park,forcing it > to close it's doors because "some" people want to trash it? Does Usenet have > to die a death by smothering before some people get the message that it is > not a bbs.. I do not consider the {rec,talk,soc} groups to be in the same class as "graffiti artists and vandals". If you feel that they are, again, why is your site carrying them? Many, many people use and enjoy these groups. Just because some sites don't want them, use them, or like them does not give those sites the right to forcibly deprive THE ENTIRE NET of these groups. If some of us want to invite the "graffiti artists and vandals" into our homes, we should be allowed to do so. You, as my neighbor, have no right to tell me who I can and cannot associate with. > When major companies start withdrawing their resources because of abuse,will > you still spew this trash? Maybe you will,but it may not leave the confines > of your site since there won't be an att,dec,sun,or university willing to > pay their money sending it halfway across the world. > > Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 When major companies start withdrawing their resources from the net (assuming that they do), other, smaller companies and individuals will fill in the gaps. I do not foresee a sudden, wholesale abandonment of the net by anyone major anytime soon...it is simply too valuable a resource, whatever its faults. I *do* foresee a minor upheaval when some site admins start realizing that they can only justify carrying certain groups, and decide to (gasp!) actually do something about it. Things will get a little crazy for awhile as their downstream sites have to look for alternate feeds to get those groups, but in the end the net will be much better for it, as the volume will be spread around a little more evenly, and the net as a whole will be even *less* vulnerable to one or two or more sites shutting down. In the coming years, the net as an entity should be able to survive quite easily, but *if and only if* everyone uses a little common sense. I do not think wholesale amputation of the majority of the net falls under the heading of "common sense". Careful selection of what you do and do not carry does. -- Lazlo Nibble (cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu)