Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: lots of newsgroups Message-ID: <8261@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 17:47:09 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.8261 Posted: Mon Jul 6 17:47:09 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jul-87 17:47:09 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 53 > Hell, from one standpoint, I'd call utzoo a broken cog. The only reasonable > argument I got against arbitrary newsgroup creation was that 16 bit > machines can't hack lots of groups... Actually, there is a more decisive argument: what good are lots of groups? Is there really a reason why we need comp.lang.c.null-pointers? All it does is clutter up an already-cluttered name space for a group that is seldom if ever used. (Incidentally, if you really mean "arbitrary" newsgroup creation, that way lies chaos -- people who cannot even get subject lines more or less right will not magically switch to carefully choosing appropriate names for their 700 brand-new newsgroups.) > In fact, the problem is really that > 16 bit "BACKBONE" machines can't hack it. Leaf sites are only constrained > by the groups they actually receive. You greatly underestimate the continuing presence of 16-bit machines on the net; there are many with full feeds, although they *are* definitely in the minority these days. > So isn't it time that utzoo gave up that hallowed position? Well, as a matter of fact utzoo is in the early stages of mutating into a larger machine. The argument stands, however. > In fact, isn't it time to start the > total phaseout of the backbone completely? Have you a substitute to suggest? I assure you that if there were an alternative that could provide equivalent service without involving any of the backbone admins, every last one of us would be *delighted* to give up our "net god" positions. I have (only half in jest) suggested that the backbone sites ought to all take a six-month holiday, and watch the chaos and madness that would ensue: if no substitute evolved, a lot of people would have learned from the experience, and if one *did* evolve, GREAT, we'd be off the hook! Being a backbone sysadmin is more hassle and less fun than a lot of people seem to think. > UUNET can provide a total feed for about $200/month. Several UUNET's > can supply the whole network with a new backbone. Yup. Is your site paying it? No? Then keep quiet about it, please. (Better yet, join up for it: UUNET needs more customers.) If UUNET can survive -- it's not out of the woods yet financially -- it is a good idea. If it succeeds big, undoubtedly there will be interest in doing the same thing elsewhere, although expanding UUNET itself to handle more customers might be better. Furthermore, I think every backbone admin would agree *wholeheartedly* that having a backbone which *charges* for its news feeds is a damn fine idea and long overdue. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry