Too much cross-posting?

[Bud Hovell]

In article <159 at zorch.UU.NET> scott at zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>being composed of sites that were sending news via fairly slow modems.  It
>made a lot of sense to the Unix-PC folks to set up a separate network and
>newsgroup heirarchy.

No one is questioning whether the decision made sense at that time. It may
even make sense now.

>The result at this point in time is that we have our own little network,
>and quite frankly a lot of "local" control of the net.  We don't have to
>petition the net.gods for a new group, nor do we have to go through the
>2-week+30-day discussion/voting period needed to create a new group in the
>mainstream Usenet.  Like the alt.net, we carry our own weight; sometimes
>this means that some extra effort may be required to get a feed.

>Usenet is *not* a free ride.  Nor is it a "libertarian forum for sharing of
>information."  It is paid for by the business and government sites that
>comprise it.  If you want a certain net group badly enough, you should be
>prepared to take the measure necessary to get it.  *Anyone* can get UUNET;

A libertarian philosophy would, in fact, strongly endorse the notion that
those who want a thing to both control and fund it. "Libertarian" is the
*opposite* of (not a synonym for) "paid for by someone else as a free ride".
"Libertarian government", for example, is an oxymoron. "Free" is a word
(along with "victim", and "fair") that libertarians tend to be repelled by.

As to my use of the word "libertarian" in this context, I was referring to
the absence of control over net traffic by some regulating "authority" 
which can impose restrictions on the content, frequency, and/or quality of
communication - those decisions being made solely by the individuals who choose
when and what to communicate and who also support the means of communication.
The fact that government sites partake of or convey Usenet no more makes
Usenet a government function than would the government's election to use
IBM equipment make IBM a government function.

Governments can operate in a free market. It is only the opposite proposition
that lacks conclusive evidence.

>any net site can get a Trailblazer at a discount if you have a registered
>domain.

You do, then, confirm that in order to receive the unix-pc group(s), the
ordinary leaf site should ordinarily be expected (if required by location)
to buy a Trailblazer (@ ~$600), and pay long-distance charges for the privilege
of access to this group? After having registered as a domain - not exactly
the rule on Usenet? You consider this a reasonable price-of-admission. Do I
have that right?

I assume you would agree that these *are* obstacles that the ordinary leaf site
need not typically hurdle in order to receive groups in the ('scuse me) "main
feed". That, indeed, the Trailblazer would usually become a necessity *only*
because of the need to reduce long-distance charges in order solely to 
maintain the unix-pc group(s) - since the majority of those sites will likely
be able to get local service without long-distance. Sorry, but it seems to me
that this is a solution fully worthy of Marie Antoinette.

>Okay, some hard facts:
>
>       +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
>       |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
>       |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
>       |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
>       |     |     |      |     +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
>       |     |     |      |     |      +-- Crossposting percentage
>       |     |     |      |     |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader
>       |     |     |      |     |      |    |       +-- Share: % of newsreaders
>       |     |     |      |     |      |    |       |   who read this group.
>       V     V     V      V     V      V    V       V
>112 14000   670   95%   132  243.9    39%  0.03    2.7%  comp.sys.att
>423   590    29    3%   202  321.0    59%  0.03    0.1%  unix-pc.general
>427   480    24    2%    16  240.7    67%  0.03    0.1%  unix-pc.sources

>As a reasonable estimate, unix-pc.* might well go to 18000 (estimated)

Making it a larger group than comp.sys.att - especially if the cross-postings
were eliminated, which would probably reduce present volume in comp.sys.att
by half (or more, if the numbers above were to be accepted as representative,
which they may or may not be).

>readers if a straight-line extrapolation makes sense.  I'm not at all
>confident, though, that the "small-town" atmosphere that makes unix-pc work
>as well as it has would survive the mainstream Usenet.

Ok - here you've got me, and I must earnestly admit that I don't get it. That
does *not* mean that I assume you are wrong. I just don't understand how this
group would be threatened by gaining wider distribution, and am more than
willing to be enlightened (but not fogged). Perhaps this will turn out to be
the salient point not taken into account in my assumption that wider distri-
bution is a Good Thing for unix-pc users at large.

I guess the other question I would have is whether or not there might be ways
to preserve this "small-town" atmosphere without (passively) restricting the
availability? Is this just not possible? Is there some demonstrated maximum
number of people who can enter into a group, after which time it just goes
to hell in a basket? Is there some sort of corollary to Parkinson's Law?

>>In other words, the continuance of the status of this group as an off-brand,
>>tough-to-get service cannot *possibly* be based on similarity of treatment
>>to other groups that no one even questions should be in the official feed.
>>So what *is* the basis for this approach?
>
>No, the basis is that unix-pc.* has nothing to do with the main Usenet except

I think you neatly managed to avoid the question: you told me what the basis
is *not* - I asked what the basis *is*! You could equally have said that the
basis of Usenet is that it has nothing to do with General Motors, the ACLU, or
the Communist Party of the USA - none of which defines what it *is*.

>for the use of the same transport mechanism and overlap between the two
>networks at many sites.  Do you complain if you cannot receive (for example)

If you are defining this as a complaint, then you have missed the point.

>alt.fusion at your site and say that *all* Usenet sites should carry it?  I
>should hope not; if you do, you're pissing in the wind...  :-)

Pissing *down*wind is, actually, not all that dangerous - as proven personally
by me on several occasions :-) *Up*wind, however, is a serious error, I agree.

No - I actually am not concerned about my *own* access at all. But I think
there are some rather high barriers that exist to access for many others, and
I'm not sure what interest is served by maintaining them. I do have some real
trouble with responses that amount to: "Because we've always done it that way".

>Frankly, I would just as soon see unix-pc.* continue in the same vein that it
>has.  It is not a service provided by the Usenet backbone to Unix-PC users;
>it is a cooperative venture between all of us for the benefit of all of us.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the USENET - this is not a difference. And "all of us" in this context
seems to imply the present unix-pc membership - no mention is made of the
(I would guess) vastly larger number of unix-pc users who are *not* served -
and never will be, presumably.

>Even though I have traded my 3B1 in for a (much) larger system, I continue
>to carry the newsgroups and provide the redistribution mailing list.

You have done a Good Thing, sir! Let no person doubt it! :-)

>It's called the "spirit of Usenet", and it's the reason that people like
>Rick Adams, Gene Spafford and Mel Pleasant keep on plugging away at providing
>the services that they provide.  It works best when we all do our part.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What, explicitly, does this really mean? I translate it to mean "I'm quite
comfortable with things as they are, and really don't want to see a change."
That's fine - I'd not try to invalidate your feelings in that regard. But
accepting them as a conclusive defense of the status quo is another matter.

And, well gee, Scott, I do find it odd that after telling me that the unix-pc
group(s) are in no way related to the USENET, that you would fall back on the
"spirit of Usenet" as your closing rational for the seperation. It makes
nice poetry, but seems to me a logical contradiction. Or, perhaps, the logic
is just too subtle for my admittedly coarse reasoning skills. :-)

And if this "spirit" actually endorses your every sentiment above expressed,
do you get this approval by way of seance, or does it just come to you in the
occasional dream? Or do you communicate with it (he? her?) thru your Magic
Decoder Ring? (Boy, I just *gotta* remember to call the Hot Line about that!)
:-)
 
                                 Bud Hovell

USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin}
USPO:   McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR  USA 97035
MOTD:   "Vote NO!"