Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: My last posting on satellite netnews (I hope) -- long
Message-ID: <831@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 10:31:19 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.831
Posted: Wed Dec 19 10:31:19 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 00:40:17 EST
References: <468@vortex.UUCP> <469@vortex.UUCP> <277@bragvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51

> but I really don't know of many corporate environments where
> the required expenses will be justifiable.

It is often possible to justify spending money on something on the grounds
that it will be cheaper in the long run.  That is the whole point of the
satellite distribution project.
> 
> I still don't understand the emphasis on the "professional" nature of
> the decoding equipment.  (Isn't all of Usenet a massive kluge?  Why did
> Lauren write his own UUCP instead of buying a professionally written
> UUCP package which met UUCP industry criteria?)

I suspect that Lauren wrote his own uucp because you can't get sources
to the one owned by AT&T without spending over $40000, which is clearly
not an option for most microcomputer owners.  And I expect that, since
Lauren intends to sell it, it will be professional-quality software when
it is released.  (Besides, it wouldn't be too difficult to make its
quality better than that of the AT&T uucp that most people have.)
However, the point of having "professional" equipment is that the stuff
needs to work reliably.  $500 is what it costs my employer for about 3
days of my time.  It's pretty easy to waste more than 3 days trying to
debug someone's flakey decoder, particularly if you don't have in-house
hardware expertise.  And I certainly can't build a useable piece of
equipment myself in 3 days.
> 
> Appendix A:  My right/privilege to kvetch (not strictly relevant).
> 
> A couple of people have asked, "what have *you* done for the net?" -- a
> fair question.  I have invested hundreds of hours in installing and
> maintaining (especially maintaining -- rn bug #29 indeed!) modems, uucp,
> and news at our site, in addition to time spent worrying about the phone
> bills.  I didn't just sit down one day and type "vnews"!  (I have also
> volunteered for the "Usenet Project" although nothing has happened yet.)
> 
> I know that many others have contributed as much, or much more, and I
> hope to do something original as soon as I install 20 more patches, test
> the new postnews, integrate pathalias into rn, etc. etc.  Until then, is
> my personal commitment worth anything?  Can I have a flamage allowance
> for every patch I install?

In a word, no.  I've been involved in supporting USENET software at Waterloo
for more than three years now.  I just finished (last night) installing
2.10.2 news and rn on 11 machines.  (Other people did do some of the
installing of bug fixes).  By your standards, I should have a very large
"flamage allowance" accumulated.  But flaming is seldom constructive,
and for the most part just wastes the readers' time.  Constructive
criticism and comments are useful, but flames are not.  So I generally
restrict my flaming to replies to other flames.  (And your initial
reaction to Lauren's posting was definitely not "constructive criticism".)

	Dave Martindale