Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!bill-n-ted!wicinski From: wicinski@bill-n-ted.sgi.com (Timothy Wicinski) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET? Message-ID: <4032@odin.SGI.COM> Date: 13 Feb 90 06:06:06 GMT References: <5633@barn.COM> <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@odin.SGI.COM Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 94 >In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >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. 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 >sillyempire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies >intothe existing structure. This may well requires polluting their >name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning an uncool >operating system. err, you're blowing here dude. besdies the fact the was already pointed out that with expanded hierarchies, people can easily cancel out what they want. And what do you define as "Empire Building"? collecting all hierarchies into current Usenet hierarchies will 1) make the hierarchies have to conform to your (and other net deziens) "policies", and 2) actually be empire-building in it's truest form. You're screaming for a monarchy, with the "so-called" news gods as the leaders, not voted on, just decided "I am a god, therefore you must obey." I don't buy that for a minute. This central idea being promoted here is not bad - ie, how can one tell if a site receives true-blue "Usenet"? well, by definition isn't it news.announce or something like that? that's a real silly way. An easier way would be if a site receives any usenet.* groups, then it will be a part of Usenet. If not (ie, if it receives vmsnet.* and alt.* [one of them being an "uncool operating system"] then it is not part of Usenet, and does not have to follow the "policies of the people". >Again, please cite references and explain in detail how this would help >us a whole bunch. I don't see *any* benefits to make up for the headaches >the transition would cause. The existing setup doesn't confuse anyone >except the occasional beginner, who will just find different issues to >be confused about. And what on Earth does this have to do with copyright >violations?? the transition would be a complete headache, and very painful. is that a reason to ignore it completely? I don't think so (if so, the current transformation from news.* to comp/talk, etc. would have never taken place). Your statement about the "occasional beginner" smacks of the Ivory-tower approach "we had to learn it all from scrath, so shouldn't everyone else?" This means Usenet is not providing a service. perhaps not, but people like uunet are providing a service, and if the service could/would benefit, then it should be made less confusing for beginners. Am i wrong, but aren't biz.* and clarinet.* copyrighted? In article bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >For example: In discussions of upcoming cross-cultural encounters >(GEnie/Usenet, FIDO/Usenet, Compu$erve/Usenet, etc.) it is often >pointed out that in each case the two should be given access to each >other, but not forcibly intermixed in each other's forms and forums. >On the Usenet side, traffic flow can be controlled with distributions >but user awareness comes best with group names. (How many average >users know whether something is a comp group or an inet group? Do you >really want C$'s UNIX forum intermixing with comp.unix.questions?) they shouldn't care, and i don't think this point was really brought up. How many average users know that talk.flame is covered by usenet, and alt.sex is not? If they read the news.announce.newusers, they MIGHT, but can you bet on that? Also your >Each side of the gateway should be able to clearly see that the new >traffic shouldn't be expected to conform to the old rules. This is >best accomplished with top-level naming to emphasize the distinction. YES! Now, if we set up a feed for all of compuserve's stuff, what would it be called?? ...."Compuserve.*" probably (or something similar). But hey, that's a full hierarchy, and Usenet can't empire build with it...Go the other way, how will Usenet be presented to Compuserve (all things being in a perfect world, etc. etc.): "well compuserve, you have to get news.*,comp.*,soc.*,talk.*,rec.*, and there might be a few others, i have to go look...." instead of saying "yea, this feed of usenet.* is all of Usenet, no alt.*, no vmsnet.*, etc." >This isn't just snobbery, it's an aid to understanding why groups of >people act the way they do. In due time the BBSers may bring >themselves up to Usenet's exalted level of wisdom and rationality of >discourse (for the humor impaired: :-) and petition to be admitted >fully and truly into the fold, but don't push things too fast. With a >few years' practice, I've even begun seeing rational commentary coming >from Portal! yes, i think they will move up to usenet. What will there first question be: what consists of usenet? certainly alt.* does not, but how can one look and say "well alt.sex is not part of usenet, but soc.motss is?" How can one tell? The big point of the whole proposal is to make Usenet one cohesive package so a pure usenet feed will be "usenet.*" instead of it's current incantations. It's much better than the myraid of hierarchies that are part of usenet, but i see a lot of shortsightedness among people willing to change. tim