Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!
seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim
From: t...@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Stargate Deployment: possibilities
Message-ID: <233@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 17:50:39 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.233
Posted: Wed Jan 23 17:50:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 04:53:34 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 56
There are a variety of goals which USENET and Stargate attempt to satisfy.
For USENET, these seem to be:
(1) Providing a means of distributing technical expertise.
(2) Fostering discussion of issues of interest to a large and diverse
net population.
Stargate attempts to allow these goals to be satisfied, while satisfying
the additional goals:
(3) Providing a cheaper way for sites to participate.
(4) Providing a more useful network by reducing the amount of trash
individual participants must "wade through".
All these are worthwhile goals. I think we can all agree on them.
Stargate is being deployed in an incompletely controlled fashion. There is
no way to guarantee that any particular description of USENET after
deployment of Stargate will be accurate. Therefore, we can not be sure that
deployment of Stargate will satisfy even the goals (1) and (2). Nor can we
be sure it will not.
If Stargate satisfies its goals, it will be a worthwhile system. If not,
then we may be able to return to the old (current) system, or we may not.
Stargate's failure may only become apparent after the existing phone-based
distribution system is disrupted beyond repair. The costs of going back to
the current system may cause sites to drop out altogether. Phone bills may
go up significantly. And so on. Remember Murphy's Law!
The point is that we have to be ready for the possible contingencies of
deployment. We have to have plans in the case of various things coming to
pass. And I see none being developed. Instead, we have true believers
claiming that this description, or that description, is definitely the
single one that will be accurate. "I can't see a USENET moderator acting in
an obnoxious fashion." "The moderators will all be fascists and abuses of
moderation will crush free speech!" "All the backbone sites will keep the
current phone line distribution system." "The backbone sites will drop out
and phone-line distribution will only be used locally." "Will not!" "Will
so!"
What we need are plans with alternatives. What we do not need is more
specious and ranting "proofs" of what USENET will look like after Stargate,
or people telling us "Don't worry, everything will turn out all right." It
may not turn out all right, and we need to be ready if that happens.
Can we all agree on at least this?
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!
cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim
From: t...@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Stargate Deployment: possibilities
Message-ID: <250@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 16-Feb-85 17:51:12 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.250
Posted: Sat Feb 16 17:51:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:11:55 EST
References: <560@vortex.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 21
Since I don't appear to have made my point clear at length, let me try to
make it as concisely as possible:
The satellite netnews project has great potential and should be continued by
all means. It also poses a small but real danger to the existing network.
Rather than flaming back and forth about whether the satellite netnews
project will or won't destroy the net, or posting proofs that the danger is
small (we all know that, but "small" ain't "none"), we should be considering
how we would recognize that this was happening and what we could do about it
once it was recognized.
I hope this is something on which we can all agree. Except Frank Adrian, of
course....
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.
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: net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Stargate Deployment: possibilities
Message-ID: <5092@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 17:39:55 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5092
Posted: Fri Feb 22 17:39:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 17:39:55 EST
References: <560@vortex.UUCP>, <250@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 30
> The satellite netnews project ...
> ... poses a small but real danger to the existing network.
> Rather than flaming back and forth about whether the satellite netnews
> project will or won't destroy the net, or posting proofs that the danger is
> small (we all know that, but "small" ain't "none"), we should be considering
> how we would recognize that this was happening and what we could do about it
> once it was recognized.
Whether Stargate/whatever will destroy the existing network is irrelevant;
the existing network will destroy itself quite soon. The traffic volume
is growing steadily, and with it the phone bills. Batching, compression,
and faster modems will postpone the problem but cannot solve it. Sooner
or later, the phone bills for the backbone sites will become unsupportable
and the whole thing will go down in flames. Speaking as the sys admin of
a backbone site, I expect the crash within a couple of years. Note that
this will happen *regardless* of whether an alternate method of news
transmission becomes practical, unless said alternate approach reduces
the volume of phone news to nearly zero. I think this most unlikely,
and have the same opinion about the possibility of radical change to
bring traffic volume under firm control. Usenet is doomed.
Given that the existing network *will* collapse, the question of whether
an alternate form of transmission will hasten its collapse is largely a
non-issue. The collapse is coming. If we want to have an alternative
in place, we must act now. If doing so precipitates the crash, it's
still the right thing to do. We must solve the problem, not just post-
pone it slightly.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
|