Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!RICEVM1!SCHAFER
From: SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Richard A. Schafer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: Re: Technical direction vs. Services
Message-ID: <900209.094748.CST.SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Date: 9 Feb 90 15:47:48 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Organization: Networking and Computing Systems, Rice University
Lines: 64
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 9 Feb 90 09:41:36 EST from <ROBINSON@BITNIC>

On Fri, 9 Feb 90 09:41:36 EST Andrew T. Robinson said:
>My concern is more with the way services are developed on this network.
>A lot of people DO accomplish a lot on BITNET, but a lot more find
>BITNET too cumbersome for words.  I have been using this network since
>1982 and I'm frequently not sure how to answer a question like "Where do
>I go to find information about such-and-such."  This is assuredly
>ignorance on my part, but I maintain that even ignorant people should
>be able to locate information quickly and easily--WITHOUT having to
>go to the "nearest LISTSERV", do an INDEX command, and try to guess
>what files/lists are applicable to the problem.
I have no disagreement with this.  Without question, there's a lot of work
that has yet to be done on making BITNET easier to use, even for
knowledgeable users like ourselves.  Like Andy, I frequently flail around
for a while looking for how to find things.  Of course, without meaning
to take a swipe at Andy or any of the current BITNIC staff, I feel that's
an area that BITNIC *has* been charged with serving and hasn't done a good
of even keeping their own files up to date.

>Software like VM NETNEWS is a step in the right direction, and I think
>that most users would choose NETNEWS over raw LISTSERV (that is based
>on my experience and may not be applicable in general).  However, like
>LISTSERV and NETSERV, NETNEWS does not seem to encourage imitators.
>There is no specifications document that would allow  enterprising
>programmers on other systems to develop compatible programs.
Sorry, but here I disagree totally.  There is a specifications document,
and it's RFC's 977 and 1036.  Taken together, they should describe enough
to allow someone who wanted to write a NETNEWs-like beast for their
environment to create something which could communicate with the rest of
the Usenet world.  These RFCs don't define how the user interface is built
but I don't think this is the problem.  (I might add, of course, that
rather than talking about NETNEWS imitators, we should note that NETNEWS
is a late-arriving (and in some ways lesser functional) version of a facility
that has been around in UNIX sites for a long time.)

>BITNET is a software oligopoly (at best).  I think we need to open the
>"market" up by specifying the services we want to provide and allowing
>people to develop their own implementations.
Back to full agreement.  The only point I'd raise is that I believe that
BITNET should be providing something more than "OK, gang, here's something
that we think every environment should develop, now go to it."  The history
of BITNET suggests that what will happen is that the VM sites will do
it first, then maybe some VMS and MVS implementations will appear, followed
eventually if ever by the rest of the network.  In the meantime, the non-VM
sites will complain that no one ever thinks about them, and the VM people
will shout back "If you want to do it, go do it yourself!"

BITNET needs to provide some support for helping people develop the software,
perhaps by providing some form of BITNET grant-funding. No, I don't know
where the funds would come from, but surely someone at EDUCOM knows
*something* about raising money, right?  EDUCOM is supporting a program
that honors people who write software for academic use.  I forget what
it's called, but the EDUCOM conference I went to in Washington, D.C. in 1988
had a big whoop-te-do, including glitzy video-tape of each winner's
software in action, plus a trophy and a monetary ($5000 for 1st place?)
price for the best of breed.  (You could even buy a copy of the video
tape to take back and show to your cohorts!)  While these programs
were all academic instruction, and usually PC or Mac based, why can't we
start some kind of program for BITNET that honors people who build
useful tools for network users?  (Yes, I'd certainly enter such a
contest; I'm not *that* self-effacing. :-)

Anyway, it's time to climb back down off my soapbox and get some work done.

Richard