Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: A USENet domain (was Re: Domain Charters) Message-ID: <106195@looking.on.ca> Date: 3 Mar 90 07:58:00 GMT References: <_.W1K12xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Feb23.202301.3363@everexn.uucp> <38951@apple.Apple.COM> <11012@saturn.ADS.COM> <38983@apple.Apple.COM> <103276@looking.on.ca> <15208@bfmny0.UU.NET> <103905@looking.on.ca> Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 40 Class: discussion In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >"Other Networks" have a central authority, Brad. Usenet inherently doesn't. >Discussion about other networks, libraries, and so on are interesting, I >guess, but they aren't relevant to Usenet. Of course they are not identical, but as the closest thing around, to suggest that they aren't relevant doesn't make any sense. Whether fish are science or hobby -- that's something not relevant to USENET if you ask me. We can learn a lot from other nets -- not just the centrally controlled ones, but the USENET similar ones, too -- and they can learn from us. I am disturbed by the sentiment that this is not true -- that experience there has no relevance. The reason they never argue about names on Compuserve or a BBS may indeed be that a central authority exists. The point I was making was that people who make their living from (and people who spend their livings on) networks seem to universally think names are a minor issue, not something subject to debate. If Compuserve thought it would please users to have them vote on forum names and structure, they would do it. They're in the business of pleasing users. Not only that, the money would roll in as they billed people at the hourly rate for all the debate about names. They choose not to do so. Central control of the namespace is possible -- I would even say desireable. Unfortunately, people have gotten into their minds that naming groups is very important, and that the name czar would have some great mystical power -- too much power to put in one place. ("Gasp, he gets to decide if it's rec.pets.fish or sci.aquaria? I want to bear his children. Oooh!") I think the opposite could (should?) happen. We would pretty much forget about names, and with luck, deal with more important issues, like what groups there should be instead of what they will be called, and what direction the software might take ... and others yet to come, I would hope. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473