Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uunet!steinmetz!vdsvax!barnett
From: barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: Re: ply to devil's advocate on possibility of useful news improvement
Message-ID: <1937@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Jul-87 08:27:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: vdsvax.1937
Posted: Sun Jul  5 08:27:04 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jul-87 20:59:09 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> <279@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: barnett@ge-crd.arpa (Bruce G Barnett)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 97
Keywords: incomprehensible
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1170 news.misc:693 news.stargate:225 news.sysadmin:271 news.admin:614

In article <279@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
>In article <1917@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, I  (Bruce G Barnett) wrote:
>> In article <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> (Bob Webber) writes:
>>> [deleted]
>> Let me try to understand your "WEBBERnews" scheme.
>
>Actually, what you wrote seems to be more your pipe dream than mine.
>Let us give credit where it is due and call your version BARNETTnews.

You should not attack ME. If your ideas are so good, then everyone
will see the advantages. Instead, you present some ideas that seem
half-baked. I tried to show you what your "fully-baked" news scheme
would look like - because I believe you have not thought them out fully.

Please - present your ideas! Finish cooking them, to complete the
analogy.

I am not proposing anything new. I am merely trying to understand you
and your views. I would much rather have you say something
intelligent, and listen to intelligent critism. The place shouldn't be
here, because it's a waste of net resources. Apparently you ignore the
criticisms of the admins of the backbone sites, and you are incapable of
understanding alternate backbones - which is one of the main
improvements of news 2.11 over 2.10.3.

Bob, I will do you a favor now. I will enlighten you!

To quote you:

>>> Of course this [WEBBERnews] is completely different from the
>>>`alternative backbone' silliness that I find quite incomprehensible.

Okay, *I* will explain it to you.

	You create your own newsgroups
	It has some other distribution than world, usa, na
	You hook up to whomever you want to.
	*You* pay for the phone bills.

I am sorry you find it incomprehensible. If you cannot understand
that, you shouldn't be wasting the network's resources with your ideas.

Now - please explain to me how your WEBBER news works. 

	So far you have said:

>>>Of
>>>course, my basic understanding of C News is that it is an attempt to
>>>make the same old mistakes run faster.  Much more interesting would
>>>be to abandon the notion of backwards compatibilty.  This would yield
>>>a new net that was initially smaller and preserved many of the virtues
>>>of the old Usenet. 

>As long as two systems understand the same format, they
>can share data.  

>Why would one want to use different
>newsgroups etc?  [Implying the newsgroups will be the same]

>No.  They are incompatible : A WEBBERnews site communicating with
>another WEBBERnews site is more efficient than a WEBBERnews site
>communicating with an un-updated USENET site.

Well, let's see. The advantage of News version C is that it runs
faster with other Rev C sites.

The advantage of WEBBER news is that it runs faster with other
WEBBERnews sites.

Rev C news is compatible with the current scheme, which means you
upgrade news B to C - replacing one news system for another. The news
readers still work. You can follow the same newsgroups with no loss of
continuity. Since it is compatible, it has been tested and debugged
with the current news system. Also, articles from a Rev C site gets
forwarded to a Rev B site, and vice versa. Other than seeing a few
strange headers like "Checksum:" - most people won't notice a difference.

Apparently, Bob, your definition of compatibility and mine are different.

Please explain, IN DETAIL, how WEBBERnews will work.

I have my personal opinions of your abilities. But I am willing to
admit that I may have misjudged you.

The Ball is in your court.

Plan your WEBBERnews. Go into detail. Post it to the net.
Don't waste the net's resources on half-baked schemes.
Don't attack others personally. 

Instead - prove that you are competent.

In simple terms "Put up, or shut up".

>--- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
-- 
Bruce G. Barnett  (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@nd m>L
Mes
Mes