Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!MAINE!MICHAEL From: michael@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Michael Johnson) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: User interface for list postings Message-ID: Date: 5 Feb 90 14:18:06 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 93 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway >On Tue, 30 Jan 90 13:55:24 EST, > Michael Johnson said: >> I would like to see the BITNIC charged with developing, or contracting to >> develop, software to implement BITNET RFC standards and with making that >> software available to all the member institutions (VMS, Unix and VM). If this > >Why does everyone on Bitnet (except RAF) seem to forget that there are >169 MVS systems on the NJE network? And those 169 systems probably >have as many users as 3 times that many VM or 20 times that many VMS >systems. Probably because everyone would LIKE to forget that MVS even exists. :-) > >> means slightly increased dues for all member institutions, so be it. It is >> certainly more fair than having a few places carry the bulk of the financial >> load that comes from product development time. > >I disagree with basically everything quoted above. First of all, >software developed by end users typically does what they want. Software developed by end users at one particular site typically does what end users AT THAT SITE want done. >Software developed by vendors (and in the above scenario, Bitnic would >be a vendor) typically does not do what you want, the way you want it No, BITNIC would be a central programming site for the BITNET. BITNIC would not be selling or otherwise making a profit on the software. So BITNIC is not a vendor in the above scenario. BITNIC would have no vested interest in stifling development of such software in desirable directions. >done, and it takes just short of forever to get the vendor to change >it. >The software that was developed by ONE or maybe TWO people is almost >always better than that developed by a large organization. (Remember >that a camel is a horse built by committee. (No smiley here.)) If you think that BITNIC is a large organization, you should have another look. There are very few people working at the NIC. Camels work pretty well for what they were designed to do.. >UCLA/Mail was developed by ONE person. Wasn't MAILER also? And MAILER was developed by 3 different people over the course of time, but the reason why it is so good now is because MANY people all over the network have supplied ideas for it to one CENTRAL development site. >nearly everyone knows that LISTSERV was developed by one person. I And shows it too. LISTSERV may be the best thing that we have for its purpose, but it is NOT the best that could be done. It has lots of shortcomings. >think that the low cost and the P.D. tools that we have for mail on >Bitnet are typically better than what vendors can sell us. And >vendors don't like to make source available. One MAJOR reason why I would EXPECT the NIC to make source available for these tools. The NIC would have no economic interest in keeping the source secret or maintaining some kind or proprietary "look and feel". These are reasons why vendors typically do not make changes easily. You are assuming that the NIC would start acting like IBM or worse, like DEC. I see no reason to assume such a thing. >certain things like UCLA/Mail, LISTSERV, MAILER, MAILBOOK are >successful is because the source is available, and sites can make >modifications to suit themselves, and contribute those mods back to >the maintainer. There is no reason why this could not be done if the NIC were maintaining said software. >I certainly don't think that software that can't be used by *all* >Bitnet sites should be funded out of general Bitnet membership fees. >If some sites want to pay Bitnic to develop software that would be >licensed to those sites paying for it, fine. But why should, say, an >MVS-only site pay for development of VM tools, or a VM-only site pay >for development of VMS tools, etc??? The point is that all sites should be REQUIRED to run up-to-date copies of certain software so that we have some consistency on the network. Let's not get into operating system politics here. The same tools would be developed for all systems hooked into the net and would be run by all systems and should therefore be paid for by the net as a whole. The current system certainly is NOT fair. A very few sites are shouldering the development and maintenance burden for the entire net. And you would like them to continue doing so while you get free software. How convenient. >Leonard D. Woren Michael Johnson "We are the Priests of the Temples University of Maine System of Syrinx. Our great computers fill Computing and Data Processing Services the hallowed halls." - Neil Peart