Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.politics Subject: Re: Flirting with Anarchy Message-ID: <831@psivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 14:16:55 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.831 Posted: Mon Nov 4 14:16:55 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 05:21:46 EST References: <431@mot.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 41 Keywords: USENET, fascism(;-), laissez faire Xref: linus net.news.group:3657 net.politics:11166 In article <431@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: >* >Does the net really need people to keep track of which groups are >supposed to exist and to prune away unauthorized groups? Isn't it >sufficient for each node to decide whether it wants to receive or >transmit each group? Only if the node sends *advance* notice to all downstream sites that it is doing so to give them a fair chance to find alternate feeds. The problem with this sort of thing is that different sites have vastly different ideas on what is appropriate, for instance Hopkins has closed the net.group newsgroup! And I have heard some sites complaining about some *technical* groups like net.sources. A second difficulty is that a large part of the atteactiveness of the net to the readers is the wide variety of subjects, including the non-technical subjects. I, for one, would read the news much less if groups like net.books and net.sf-lovers disappeared, and I would not be as opposed to my company dropping the net completely as I would be under current conditions. >will independently cease transmitting it, it will fragment and whither >away. If a node is concerned about high bills, it will unilaterally >decide how to reduce its participation. It seems like it all should >take care of itself BY LOCAL ACTIONS ONLY. Why are there directors on the net? >Why do people issue rmgroups to others? Why is it necessary to vote on >things? Does not a node (the entity footing the bill) vote by deciding >what to carry? Has it been found that this kind of anarchy does not work >for the net and some central control is necessary? It is not obvious >to me that it is; but then, I am not one of the old-timers on the net. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A 85282 >seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al, ihnp4!mot!al, ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa