Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!decwrl!sgi!rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Robert P. Warnock) Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: USENIX Board Studies UUCP Message-ID: <46406@sgi.sgi.com> Date: 15 Dec 89 06:59:23 GMT References: <36700@apple.Apple.COM> <127@dumbcat.UUCP> <36766@apple.Apple.COM> <1989Nov26.001644.3176@utzoo.uucp> <93061@pyramid.pyramid.com> Sender: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com Reply-To: rpw3@rigden.UUCP (Robert P. Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 24 In article spencer@eecs.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas) writes: >You should all read the Viewpoint column in this month's CACM. John >McCarthy writes "Networks considered harmful for electronic mail". He >pushes development of a standard that will compete with FAX, where you >can send mail to "any" telephone number, without pre-arrangement with >the receiving party. Otherwise, he feels, e-mail will never "make >it", since FAX is just easier. > >Quote: "E-mail could work the same way at similar costs [as FAX, >projected to be $200/machine by 2010, and present in 50% of all homes >(yes, something like 30 MILLION installations)], but because of a >mistake by DARPA about 20 years ago, i.e., making a special-purpose, >special-politics ARPANET network the main vehicle for e-mail, it was >combined with other network uses that require higher bandwidth and >packet switching. Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone >network, but three features inherited from its use within Bell >Telephone Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder." > >Read it yourself if you want to know why. And factor his points into >the "future of UUCP", if you can. > > >-- >=Spencer (spencer@eecs.umich.edu)