Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos!mccall!tp From: tp@mccall.uucp Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET? Message-ID: <2114.25cf1081@mccall.uucp> Date: 6 Feb 90 17:59:27 GMT References: <5633@barn.COM> <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA Lines: 83 In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: >>I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the >>usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there >>couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own >>subject, rules, and distribution. > > Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed > hierarchies: the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already > getting ridiculous. I won't say that sysadmin issues are unimportant, but I'd say they are considerably less important than user interface issues. Besides, more hierarchies would SHORTEN the sys file lines for people who want restricted feeds. > Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action > by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes > in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. This is > already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it > will be an administrative nightmare. We need to discourage this silly > empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into > the existing structure. This may well require some changes in rules; > in particular, some sort of procedure for delegating name-space > management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just > *have* to have their own hierarchy. (My opinion is that they are > usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.) Requiring explicit action to carry the group can be perceived as an advantage. Many people want to fold into usenet so they get worldwide distribution, but that obligates you to follow usenet rules. On the other hand, if you have a separate hierarchy with a different set of rules, sysadmins can cut off the feed if they don't like the rules. In otherwords, carrying the hierarchy is tacit agreement to follow the rules of that hierarchy. If you delegated a group within usenet, could you really have an independent set of rules? Remember that your groups are going to people who have only tacitly agreed to usenet rules, and if they didn't see the discussion, may not be aware of what they are carrying. >>... when a new, non-USENET news hierarchy is >>added to the network, the USENET people scream that the new hierarchy is >>polluting their name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning >>an uncool operating system. > > Actually, the usual scream is "oh #@#@%$, not *another* pinhead who wants > his own little empire for some ridiculous reason!". When I created the vmsnet hierarchy, based on postings plus email I received, this was a decidedly minority opinion. > I've never heard > anyone complain about polluting the name space, conflicting with rules, > *or* mentioning an uncool operating system -- can you cite references? You seem to have a short memory. vmsnet was only created a few months ago. I got every one of those complaints. Granted, most of them were from the uninformed. Quite frankly Henry, your complaints (and those who basically agreed with you, or raised related issues), were about the only ones that did make any sense. I'm not saying there isn't more than one side to the issue, and obviously none of the above objections are valid, but they do come up. > Frankly, suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into > a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand > that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome. > ("We can't call it comp.unix.questions, that's not descriptive enough -- > technology.computers.software.operatingsystems.posixcompliant.unix.questions > is what we need.") If it's not broken, don't fix it. Agreed. Besides, there is nothing to say that an alternate hierarchy couldn't expand into more than one hierarchy. And yes, Henry, I do know what you think of that idea. I've also been told that one of the strong reasons this whole idea gets frowned on is that people are worried that if the groups are broken down into smaller sets of related groups, THEIR favorite group might not be deemed important enough to carry net wide. The person(s) expressing this view didn't even want it discussed publicly. I'm not so sure it wouldn't be a good thing. -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu