Path: utzoo!utgpu!BITNIC!FUTURE-L Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 11:13:16 EST Reply-To: BITNET Futures List Sender: BITNET Futures List From: Dave Buechner Subject: Re: fall of bitnet To: UofToronto LAN redistribution References: Message of Tue, Message-ID: <90Feb28.172639est.58150@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.future-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu On Tue, 27 Feb 90 17:07:00 CST Rick Kirkham said: > The second myth is that the Internet cannot provide interactive >messages. In fact, it can. And many (most?) Internet nodes have a >program, usually called PHONE or TALK, which allows conversations be- >tween users anywhere in the country. Moreover, unlike the so-called >"interactive" messages of NJE, these conversations are in real time. As has been pointed out (I believe by John Wagner) the NJE messages are pretty close to real time. And they are created and received with standard easy to use programs. Part of the problem with interactive messages in the Internet is pointed out by your message; you use a program "usually" called PHONE "or" TALK. Such programs have grown up in the Unix world as far as I know. They're not really defined standard TCP/IP applications that are expected to be implemented in even the quasi-consistent way of some of the other applications (such as FTP). Besides which, personally, the asynchronous nature of NJE messages is very helpful. I can send a message, and go back to what I was doing. And I can be sent a message no matter what program I am/am not running. This has helped me provide "support" to people having problems with my site no matter where they are. Again, this is not to say that PHONE and TALK and company are not valid ways of doing some interactive messaging. They do not currently cover all of the bases. > Finally, please note that my assertion was that all Bitnet/UUCP >services _can_ be duplicated in the Internet, not that all of them ac- >tually are at the moment. E.g. some Usenet groups are not echoed as >Internet SIGs. But they perfectly well could be. > I think many of us realize that, and realized it from the start. But let's be clear on what others are saying. There are no complaints about whether it is possible to implement Bitnet's services in the Internet, but there is valid concern about the fact that they are not there *now* and that noone is as yet working on them as far as most of us can tell. Until that happens and we all get a chance to play with it there is a need fulfilled by Bitnet that is not fulfilled anywhere else and hence the "death of Bitnet" is premature. >Rick Kirkham Dave Buechner Lead IBM Systems Programmer Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA