Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uunet!pcrat!rick From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: Re: lots of newsgroups Message-ID: <362@pcrat.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 07:55:11 EDT Article-I.D.: pcrat.362 Posted: Tue Jul 7 07:55:11 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jul-87 05:51:29 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <8261@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 63 Xref: mnetor news.groups:1193 news.admin:643 The "> >" are from me, uunet!pcrat!rick (Rick Richardson) In article <8261@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > 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? No, I don't mean absolutly arbitrary creation of *.*.*.null-pointers (although Guy might want to post to that one :-) ). But from time to time new group requests get posted that are unique, and the category broad enough that the group shouldn't get shot down just because it may be lower volume than other groups. Rec.gambling comes to mind here. > 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. This site is a 16 bit site. I don't ever intend to get or need a full feed. If a 16 bit machine starts having trouble with the number of newsgroups, then they can just pare down the feed. Else, C news could be made to work for more newsgroups on 16 bit machines (but what I waste of effort that would prove to be). > > In fact, isn't it time to start the > > total phaseout of the backbone completely? > > Have you a substitute to suggest? I did make the following suggestion: > > 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 you'd looked at the path I sent this by, you'd have seen that I AM already a UUNET customer. So I'll be noisy about it, thank you. BTW, my $200 figure is from taking Rick Adam's $175 figure, and adding in an approximation of the alt.* groups which were just recently added to UUNET. My bill was about $65 last month. I think it'l be around $120 this month, but I snarfed a bunch of stuff from the sources archives on UUNET. Most of the cost was the $3/hour of transmission time, at 1200 baud (Tymnet doesn't have 2400 baud access in Red Bank, my local node, sigh). Presumably, you could cut costs even further by using PC Pursuit to call down to Arlington (I think that's where UUNET is) and into UUNET. Rick Adams just said that the 1 UUNET machine could potentially handle 10% of all known USENET sites. 10 machines around the country wouldn't be bad from a reliability/logistics standpoint. But even 10 machines won't be needed at first, since only 1 machine at a site need be a subscriber to UUNET. So, how much are the backbones paying to carry USENET? Less than $200/month? More? If it's more, then why haven't you P.O. 'ed yourself a subscription to UUNET yet? If it's less, perhaps you'd like a little autonomy for a price, or direct access to source archives? -- Rick Richardson, President, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 834-1378 (voice, days) seismo!uunet!pcrat!rick