Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!fernwood!vixie!pacbell!barn!jsl From: jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET? Message-ID: <5639@barn.COM> Date: 7 Feb 90 12:03:11 GMT References: <5633@barn.COM> <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> Organization: Barn Communications, Graton, CA Lines: 104 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. > > [...] the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already > getting ridiculous. 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. (and then...) > We need to discourage this silly > empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into > the existing structure. Wouldn't this folding of hierarchies *increase* the problem with the sys file? Let's say "gnu.*" is folded into "comp.os.gnu.*". If I didn't care about GNU software, it would take *more* bytes to add "!comp.os.gnu" to my sys file than *not* including "gnu". > [...] 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. For some topics, yes. But how do you handle commercial, proprietary, or internal hierarchies? These hierarchies are going to exist no matter what. > I've never heard > anyone complain about polluting the name space, conflicting with rules, > *or* mentioning an uncool operating system -- can you cite references? How about vmsnet? Wasn't there some controversy about this being a UNIX network, not a VMS network? Maybe I'm mis-remembering. And what about Clarinet or biz? Would you want to fold these in as well, they being explicitly commercial hierarchies? And gnu, even though they consider the GNU newsgroups to be their property? It works the other way, too -- are you going to force alt to conform to USENET's guidelines? > > 1. Put all existing true-USENET groups (comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci, > > and talk) under the top-level name "usenet." > > Again, please cite references and explain in detail how this would help > us a whole bunch. It would create a more unified namespace. The top-level name would be the network (alt, gnu, usenet, etc.), somewhat analogous to a publisher of a newspaper or magazine. Whether the "publisher" is a real organization (like clari or gnu) or is an unofficial group of people (like usenet or alt), each hierarchy is governed, more or less, by guidelines set down by the publisher. New hierarchies could be started by organizations who want to have a way of getting their data out there to the rest of the world. For instance, most on-line services like EcoNet, WELL, Portal, etc., have internal hierarchies that might be of interest to people who are not direct users of their systems (I'm talking hardware system here). They could sell a subscription to their hierarchy to sites who wanted it, and expand their base of users. (I have no idea if any of these services are doing this or even want to do this; it's just an example.) > And what on Earth does this have to do with copyright > violations?? Sorry, that was a bad choice of wording. I suppose I was talking mostly about ClariNet and their posting of various news articles versus an individual posting, say, Dave Barry articles to USENET. ClariNet has permission; the individual (usually) does not. > 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. It's a one-level change, Henry. I'm *not* suggesting *any* other USENET change (except the possible renaming of "news" to "admin"). I don't care what happens to USENET itself (or any of the other hierarchies, for that matter); the point I'm trying to make is that, believe it or not, there are *other* networks out there, and making the top-level name be the name of the network would make for a more consistent interface. > > 2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy... > > Why? The dominant feature of most of the "alternate" hierarchies is a > firm desire to run things *their* way, not ours. Note the word "recommended." If a new hierarchy doesn't want to have these groups, fine; however, these groups (with the possible exception of test, which someone pointed out to me) have all served their purposes well on USENET. > Avoiding problems is better than solving them. Yes, but solving *current* problems is better than avoiding them. -- John Labovitz Domain: jsl@barn.com Phone: 707/823-2919 Barn Communications UUCP: ..!pacbell!barn!jsl