Path: utzoo!utgpu!BITNIC!FUTURE-L
Date:	Sun, 25 Feb 90 18:32:00 EST
Reply-To: BITNET Futures List <FUTURE-L@BITNIC.bitnet>
Sender: BITNET Futures List <FUTURE-L@BITNIC.bitnet>
From:	Rick Kirkham <RKIRKHAM@AARDVARK.UCS.UOKNOR.EDU>
Subject:      fall of Bitnet
To:	UofToronto LAN redistribution <FUTURE-L@UTORGPU.uucp>
Message-ID: <90Feb26.125450est.57362@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Newsgroups: list.future-l
Distribution: ut
Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu

Cliff Frost writes:

  {I think BITNET is the name
  {for a collection of services, most built on top of NJE connectivity.
  {As long as users want these services BITNET will thrive.
  {Running NJE over TCP/IP allows these services to be complementary...
  {you
  {can run either UUCP or NJE or both on top of IP if you want
  {those services.

I know of no service provided by either Bitnet or UUCP that cannot be
easily duplicated (and for the most part already is duplicated) on
the Internet.
Why deal with the technical headaches of running one protocol over
another?

None of the recent posting have succeeded in justifying the continued
existence of Bitnet beyond the time when the forthcoming Edunet is
fully independent/operational. On the other hand, I can see a future
for the PEOPLE who run Bitnet and Bitnic: The Edunet, after all, is
going to need a network information center.

Dept. of Philosophy/U of Oklahoma/Norman OK 73019
rkirkham@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
rkirkham@uokucsvx (Bitnet)
aa9927@uokmvsa (Bitnet)