Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwrdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!seismo!trwrdc!frith From: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news Subject: Re: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds Message-ID: <1096@trwrdc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 11:04:45 EST Article-I.D.: trwrdc.1096 Posted: Wed Nov 6 11:04:45 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:58:27 EST Reply-To: frith@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 135 Xref: linus net.news.group:3723 net.news:3501 >> It strikes me as yet another example of one person or group of persons >> attempting to assert their doctrine over the entire community.... > Why is that? Because it doesn't agree with what YOU want? It works > both ways, you know. I object to self-made "gaurdians of the truth" making statements like "we must impose centralized control over the community" when the only "we" that person speaks for is himself. You stated the need to eliminate newsgroups as sanctioned by "we." You certainly do not represent the entire Netnews community and by you own admission you don't represent the backbone administrators. So what can I conclude? >> And I suppose that the privelage to create newsgroups should be reserved >> to the system administrators so that those obnoxious bozos won't propagate >> their drivel? Who is this "we" that you speak of? Is this the royal "we." >> Do you speak for all site administrators or is this your own personal creedo? > > I suggest that before you flame me in public you check your facts. I am > not a site administrator. I am merely doing what everyone else is doing, > which is stating my opinion. Anyone who reads this newsgroup is entitled > to do so. By "we", I meant EVERYONE on the net. If you read it differently, > then you read what you wanted me to have said, not what I DID say. I wasn't suggesting that you WERE a site administrator. Note that I asked who you were representing. The fallacy in your opinion is that the "we" you speak of may not agree with you. Backbone administrators do (in general) but the net community as a whole might not. > And I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Phone bills ARE mounting > to the point where groups ARE being cut by backbone sites. If we do not come > to some kind of agreement on how to limit net traffic, then the net really > WILL be run by the "backbone cabal" deciding what they can afford to pay for. > Phone bills CANNOT increase without bound. There HAS to be a limit > SOMEWHERE. The only question is, what is the limit and how shall it be > imposed. You can avoid the "imposition of limits" by simply distributing the load to other backbones. The so-called "backbone" might include quite a few more sites, spaced closer together to avoid those long-distance calls. This assumes that such sites can be found of course. Before claiming that limits must be imposed let's find an alternative to accomidate the net growth. If the growth cannot be accomidated then AT LEAST involve the net community so as to avoid this centralized "control" or elitest "cabal." > Perhaps you are right. But, if we don't come to an agreement on SOME kind > of rules, then traffic will continue to increase at the alarming rate it > currently is. And if whatever rules are agreed upon are not enforced, then > they are a joke. How do YOU propose to limit net traffic, By asking how I would limit the traiffic you have loaded the question. If net growth cannot be accomidated (you're creative people... find a way) then yes the traffic will have to be limited. If phone bills become too high for any one site to handle then that site should gracefully inform the community it serves that such is the case. > Depends on what you mean by "better", doesn't it? In our "free" society, > we indeed to have a "central body of administrators performing the will > of the community". It's called the Congress, the President and the Supreme > Court. The reason we have this is simple: it is impractical to give > EVERYONE input into EVERY decision that has to be made. I think that applies > to the net, too, and I believe that whether or not I end up being one of the > "central body" or not. The Netnews community more resembles an anarchy. Our system of government is more like a republic where the power to govern has supposedly been granted by the people. I think the power to make decisions CAN be distrbuted to the community with the right automated structure and that this would be an interesting experiment to try on the net. The net and our system of government are VERY different. I don't think this is really an adequate analogy. Exactly WHAT governing and administration is required to "run the net?" I may be wrong, but I see very little NECESSARY intervention by people. >> What you are willing or not willing to pay for effects sites down the pike >> that rely on you for news. ... Your site may pay the bills, but that >> doesn't mean you can ignore the needs of everyone else. > > We don't. We pass on a lot of articles that I'm fairly sure no one on > this site ever reads. But, there has to be a LIMIT. I do not WANT to see > the limit imposed by the backbone because of their own personal tastes. > That's why I'd much rather see a centralized set of rules that EVERYONE obeys. Me too. But I resent the notion that this set of rules must be imposed, administered and beaten into the heads of people from a central autonomous cable that the community has no control over. >> May I suggest that the rules of the net be enforced IN SOFTWARE >> according to a commonly held set of rules? Voting could be >> accomplished automatically. That would make a fun project. > > Not a bad idea. I am not opposed to such a suggestion, if it can be > implemented. Two questions would have to be answered; first, who is going > to write and test the new software, and second, what do we do about sites > that refuse to use the new software? How many sites refued to use Larry Wall's "rn" software? Is this a problem? I see no problem with the software being maintained through the usual methods. There would have to be built-in security methods that allow the methodology to remain public and yet secure. Kind of like the DES algorithm. We know how it works, we simply can't defeat it by knowing how it works. The voting software in Netnews would have to be like that. Ever study voting theory? It's very applicable to this net-scenario. >> No no no no no no! Slowing down the rate of growth is NOT the same as >> excersising control over newsgroup creation. You regulate flow by adapting >> the network topology to the flow. Build in more redundancy and coordinate >> calls between sites more effectivly. By controlling newsgroup creation you >> also control newsgroup content. > > I do not see that this is the case at all. Anyone can post whatever they > want. Nothing is in place to stop them. I do agree that some of the other > suggestions in this paragraph might be useful. Let the sites that want > net.bizarre arrange their own connections and PAY for it. No problem with > that. What is stoping us from posting just ANYTHING... are the net rules themselves. If I want to post "bizarre" material, just where am I going to do it? And if I create a new newsgroup called net.bizarre then it surely will be removed by Spaf on the grounds that it is useless and runs up phone bills. See what I mean? Of course to ask individual sites to pay for long-distance calls on such material is ridiculous (although quite fair). Thus we need several backbones to handle the diverse and increased load. > This has been attempted and it has failed. net.announce.newusers was > created for this purpose, and yet we STILL have people asking what SO means > in net.singles, or what have you, evidence that they did not READ the stuff > that was there to "educate" them. And we can't even get sites to upgrade > to COMPATIBLE versions of the news software, never mind something that > "we" have deemed "better". There will always be idiots...