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