Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!lll-tis!oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry
From: terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: 417K waste of money postings (was: Re: PICNIX V3)
Message-ID: <557@wsccs.UUCP>
Date: 28 May 88 08:35:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: wsccs.557
References: <1559@slvblc.UUCP> <111@pigs.UUCP> <2197@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Lines: 112
Summary: urg.

In article <2197@bgsuvax.UUCP>, ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes:
> In article <111@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> > In article <1559@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes:
> > > This newest version of the PiCnix collection is not currently
> > > available from any public or private BBS, so you'll see it here
> > > first!
> > 
> > first, picnix is a shareware product
> 
> 1.) many things posted are sharware . . . how about Zmodem??  Why didn't you
>     complain about that??  

	Zmodem is generally useful to the people bearing the cost of
acquiring it.  Simply the fact that it is written in C, available in
source form, and deals with communications makes it a useful item.

> 2.)  The version posted was old, old, old!!  This is the latest and greatest
>      version!  I (and I suppose many others) APPRECIATE being updated to the
>      latest versions.

	Shareware is generally provided such that a "registration fee"
will get you an update to the most recent version.  If you are so
"appreciative", you most certainly would register your copy and pay the
fee.  While I agree that it is no less or more intrinsically deserving
of retransmission, John makes some valid points.

> > thirdly, the cost of transmitting this product is once again being
> > borne by the net without their consent, per se.  

This is an incorrect statement.  It is always possible to drop a newsgroup.
A very small amount of creative programming can easily disallow lumps over
a certain limit... of course, an equally small amout of creative posting
would get around this.

> > fifth, the posters in comp.binaries.ibm.pc don't seem to have the
> > connectivity to be providing useful services to the net.
>                                     .
>                                     .
>                                     .
> > . . . are we
> > really going to let pc-clone users spend all of the net's money and
> > provide nothing in return?
> 
> 5.)  I'm not going to even honor this with a comment.  John's one-sided
>      selfishness against pc-clones is really showing through.  Besides, who
>      is John and why is he making such a nuisance of himself?

I will.  Apparently, John is upset that the destination has nothing to do
with any intermediate interests, yet it bears the transport cost.  This
is intrinsic in any tree-structured system... take trees, for instance.
The trunk transports all materials to the leaves.  In this instance,
John simply points out that the leaves are costing the trunk without
the benefits normally derived, if my analogy were to be taken to it's
conclusion.

While it is accepted that a portion of the bandwidth is taken up by
things of no interest to those carrying them, I think the backbone
and branch sites (where I am at now is a leaf; however the company I
work at operates a branch site) have been more than generous in accepting
such a small percentage of bandwith dedicated to their interests.

"selfishness" is justified when there is personal cost involved and no
personal benefit; in addition, you yourself agreed that picnix is
a shareware product.  Usenet's primary stated goal is the disemination of
information and as a forum for discussion.  Software distribution is a
sideline, and, to me, it seems that a single company using a great deal
of bandwidth for dissemination of their software in order to save
themselves money is selfishness.  I agree that the cost would be difficult
to collect, but I believe the company owes the net something; if the sole
purpose of distribution over the net was not intentended to generate revenue
for the company (exteremely doubtful), then the brunt of the cost should
be assesed from thos who are benefitiing: payment for service rendered.
The software, is, after all, shareware.  The idea is that you pay for it;
that you choose to get your copy through usenet rather than 'standard'
liscencing/distribution channels is your option.

> fine . . . give us your Internet address and we'll all get it . . . OH, you
> don't have one?  Only UUCP . . . hmmmmm, gee, that'll cost MONEY.  And since
> we NNTP our news from another site (which DOESN'T cost MONEY) I think the
> choice is obvious . . .

But it does cost someone money somewhere, and that's the point.  It is
highly likely that it cost John some bucks, considering that he is
apparently annoyed.  Your selfishness is in making John pay for it rather
than paying for it yourself... after all, you're benefitting.  Admittedly,
a not inconsiderable number of people have benefitted downstream of John,
so the cost vs. number of people benefited is low, the cost has NOT been
distributed equally among the beneficiaries.  It is similar to expecting
John to make 5 percentof the car payments for 20 people and then saying
"well, he's only paying for one car".

1)	John derives no benefit.
2)	The company derives ome benefit (their product is distributed),
	but this is greatly offset by the number of people who will
	not update as a result.
3)	You benefit

1)	John pays the freight.
2)	The company pays in oportunity cost
3)	You pay no cost (other than flames).

As bandwidth increases, as it inevitably will, leaf nodes will have
to expect to bear some of the burden for the financial costs of
sending what they receive... this is only logical; whether this will
"kill" Usenet as currently formulated remains to be seen.  Possible
soloutions already exist; a number of "public access" UNIX systems
charge connect fees for their use.  Perhaps this will increase in the
future.  Until that time, however, this will still remain a bone of
contention as the more verbose groups  which are not of interest to
the backbone or branch sites are limited or dropped.

					terry@wsccs