Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!h-sc1!breuel
From: breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga,net.news.group
Subject: Re: commercialism and net.micro.amiga going the way of .mac
Message-ID: <701@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 13:35:32 EST
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.701
Posted: Sat Nov  2 13:35:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 16:47:28 EST
References: <477@spice.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.micro.mac:3244 net.micro.amiga:583 net.news.group:4223

> > Quite honestly, the only real solution I see to the current net malaise,
> > is to retrench ourselves into a pure UNIX network, with moderated feeds
> > from other interest groups, and perhaps even with full moderation on all
> > groups.

USENET is received on a wide variety of machines with a wide variety of
operating systems, purposes, and needs. One of the needs is MacIntosh
technical information and software. Probably most universities on the
net use Macs. Just because you are at a site that doesn't use Macs doesn't
mean that a large number of people on the net don't. And I can see nothing
wrong with technical information coming directly from Apple. After all,
other companies post or distribute software fixes and product announcements
over USENET, and that kind of information is useful and desirable.

> I realize that backbone sites
> bear large parts of the cost of the net and therefore have a lot of say in how
> it is run.

I agree with the premise. I disagree with the conclusion. Because of their
exposed position, backbone sites cannot just drop newsgroups at will.
(Think also about *why* backbone sites play the role they play. I am
certain that it is not philanthropy -- perhaps, they want the
USENET information first hand, they would like to have more say in newsgroup
creation, and they want the advertising).

I believe that ultimately the concept of backbone sites is wrong, or
that at the very least the layout of their connections is completely wrong.
There is no reason why the USENET part of a backbone site with n
connections should have a higher phone bill than any other site with
n connections.

							Thomas.