384 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
384 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
From pit-manager.MIT.EDU!daemon Sun Apr 12 18:37:58 1992 remote from piraya
|
|
Received: by piraya.bad.se (1.64/waf)
|
|
via UUCP; Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:16:34 GMT
|
|
for bozze
|
|
Received: from sunic.sunet.se by mail.swip.net (5.61+IDA/KTH/LTH/1.2)
|
|
id AAmail14800; Sun, 12 Apr 92 18:37:58 +0200
|
|
Received: from PIT-MANAGER.MIT.EDU by sunic.sunet.se (5.61+IDA/KTH/LTH/1.23)
|
|
id AAsunic25304; Sun, 12 Apr 92 18:37:46 +0200
|
|
Received: by pit-manager.MIT.EDU (5.61/2.1JIK)
|
|
id <AA06367@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>; Sun, 12 Apr 92 12:36:19 -0400
|
|
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 12:36:19 -0400
|
|
From: Mr Background <daemon@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>
|
|
Message-Id: <9204121636.AA06367@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>
|
|
Subject: Reply from mserv re: send usenet/news.announce.newusers/What_is_Usenet?
|
|
Reply-To: mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
|
|
X-Problems-To: postmaster@pit-manager.mit.edu
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
To: bozze@piraya.bad.se (Bo Arnoldson)
|
|
|
|
Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu news.announce.newusers:772 news.admin:20440 news.answers:600
|
|
Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!spaf
|
|
From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)
|
|
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.admin,news.answers
|
|
Subject: What is Usenet?
|
|
Message-ID: <spaf-whatis_698911811@cs.purdue.edu>
|
|
Date: 24 Feb 92 06:10:13 GMT
|
|
Expires: 24 Apr 92 18:10:11 GMT
|
|
Followup-To: news.newusers.questions
|
|
Organization: Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue Univ.
|
|
Lines: 350
|
|
Approved: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU
|
|
Supersedes: <spaf-whatis_692072008@cs.purdue.edu>
|
|
|
|
Archive-name: what-is-usenet/part1
|
|
Original from: chip@count.tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
|
|
Last-change: 2 Dec 91 by chip@count.tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing to understand about Usenet is that it is widely
|
|
misunderstood. Every day on Usenet, the "blind men and the elephant"
|
|
phenomenon is evident, in spades. In my opinion, more flame wars
|
|
arise because of a lack of understanding of the nature of Usenet than
|
|
from any other source. And consider that such flame wars arise, of
|
|
necessity, among people who are on Usenet. Imagine, then, how poorly
|
|
understood Usenet must be by those outside!
|
|
|
|
Any essay on the nature of Usenet cannot ignore the erroneous
|
|
impressions held by many Usenet users. Therefore, this article will
|
|
treat falsehoods first. Keep reading for truth. (Beauty, alas, is
|
|
not relevant to Usenet.)
|
|
|
|
WHAT USENET IS NOT
|
|
------------------
|
|
1. Usenet is not an organization.
|
|
|
|
No person or group has authority over Usenet as a whole. No one
|
|
controls who gets a news feed, which articles are propagated
|
|
where, who can post articles, or anything else. There is no
|
|
"Usenet Incorporated," nor is there a "Usenet User's Group."
|
|
You're on your own.
|
|
|
|
Granted, there are various activities organized by means of Usenet
|
|
newsgroups. The newsgroup creation process is is one such
|
|
activity. But it would be a mistake to equate Usenet with the
|
|
organized activities it makes possible. If they were to stop
|
|
tomorrow, Usenet would go on without them.
|
|
|
|
2. Usenet is not a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a whole
|
|
-- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenet
|
|
cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "-acy."
|
|
(But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)
|
|
|
|
3. Usenet is not fair.
|
|
|
|
After all, who shall decide what's fair? For that matter, if
|
|
someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him? Neither
|
|
you nor I, that's certain.
|
|
|
|
4. Usenet is not a right.
|
|
|
|
Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
|
|
to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
|
|
say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
|
|
said computers have no right to stop them.
|
|
|
|
Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
|
|
to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
|
|
that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
|
|
one.
|
|
|
|
5. Usenet is not a public utility.
|
|
|
|
Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized. Most of
|
|
them, by plain count, are not. There is no government monopoly
|
|
on Usenet, and little or no government control.
|
|
|
|
6. Usenet is not an academic network.
|
|
|
|
It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities,
|
|
research labs or other academic institutions. Usenet originated
|
|
with a link between two universities, and the exchange of ideas
|
|
and information is what such institutions are all about. But the
|
|
passage of years has changed Usenet's character. Today, by plain
|
|
count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities.
|
|
|
|
7. Usenet is not an advertising medium.
|
|
|
|
Because of Usenet's roots in academia, and because Usenet depends
|
|
so heavily on cooperation (sometimes among competitors), custom
|
|
dictates that advertising be kept to a minimum. It is tolerated
|
|
if it is infrequent, informative, and low-hype.
|
|
|
|
The "comp.newprod" newsgroup is NOT an exception to this rule:
|
|
product announcements are screened by a moderator in an attempt to
|
|
keep the hype-to-information ratio in check.
|
|
|
|
If you must engage in flackery for your company, use the "biz"
|
|
hierarchy, which is is explicitly "advertising-allowed", and which
|
|
(like all of Usenet) is carried only by those sites that want it.
|
|
|
|
8. Usenet is not the Internet.
|
|
|
|
The Internet is a wide-ranging network, parts of which are
|
|
subsidized by various governments. It carries many kinds of
|
|
traffic, of which Usenet is only one. And the Internet is only
|
|
one of the various networks carrying Usenet traffic.
|
|
|
|
9. Usenet is not a UUCP network.
|
|
|
|
UUCP is a protocol (actually a "protocol suite," but that's a
|
|
technical quibble) for sending data over point-to-point
|
|
connections, typically using dialup modems. Sites use UUCP to
|
|
carry many kinds of traffic, of which Usenet is only one. And
|
|
UUCP is only one of the various transports carrying Usenet
|
|
traffic.
|
|
|
|
10. Usenet is not a United States network.
|
|
|
|
It is true that Usenet originated in the United States, and the
|
|
fastest growth in Usenet sites has been there. Nowadays, however,
|
|
Usenet extends worldwide.
|
|
|
|
The heaviest concentrations of Usenet sites outside the U.S. seem
|
|
to be in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan.
|
|
|
|
Keep Usenet's worldwide nature in mind when you post articles.
|
|
Even those who can read your language may have a culture wildly
|
|
different from yours. When your words are read, they might not
|
|
mean what you think they mean.
|
|
|
|
11. Usenet is not a UNIX network.
|
|
|
|
Don't assume that everyone is using "rn" on a UNIX machine. Among
|
|
the systems used to read and post to Usenet are Vaxen running VMS,
|
|
IBM mainframes, Amigas, and MS-DOS PCs.
|
|
|
|
12. Usenet is not an ASCII network.
|
|
|
|
Those IBM mainframes used to participate in Usenet use (shudder)
|
|
EBCDIC. Other sites use special character sets for non-English
|
|
postings. Ignore non-ASCII sites if you like, but they exist.
|
|
|
|
13. Usenet is not software.
|
|
|
|
There are dozens of software packages used at various sites to
|
|
transport and read Usenet articles. So no one program or package
|
|
can be called "the Usenet software."
|
|
|
|
Software designed to support Usenet traffic can be (and is) used
|
|
for other kinds of communication, usually without risk of mixing
|
|
the two. Such private communication networks are typically kept
|
|
distinct from Usenet by the invention of newsgroup names different
|
|
from the universally-recognized ones.
|
|
|
|
Well, enough negativity.
|
|
|
|
WHAT USENET IS
|
|
--------------
|
|
Usenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one or
|
|
more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"
|
|
for short).
|
|
|
|
(Note that the term "newsgroup" is correct, while "area," "base,"
|
|
"board," "bboard," "conference," "round table," "SIG," etc. are
|
|
incorrect. If you want to be understood, be accurate.)
|
|
|
|
DIVERSITY
|
|
---------
|
|
If the above definition of Usenet sounds vague, that's because it is.
|
|
|
|
It is almost impossible to generalize over all Usenet sites in any
|
|
non-trivial way. Usenet encompasses government agencies, large
|
|
universities, high schools, businesses of all sizes, home computers of
|
|
all descriptions, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
(In response to the above paragraphs, it has been written that there
|
|
is nothing vague about a network that carries megabytes of traffic per
|
|
day. I agree. But at the fringes of Usenet, traffic is not so heavy.
|
|
In the shadowy world of news-mail gateways and mailing lists, the line
|
|
between Usenet and not-Usenet becomes very hard to draw.)
|
|
|
|
CONTROL
|
|
-------
|
|
Every administrator controls his own site. No one has any real
|
|
control over any site but his own.
|
|
|
|
The administrator gets her power from the owner of the system she
|
|
administers. As long as her job performance pleases the owner, she
|
|
can do whatever she pleases, up to and including cutting off Usenet
|
|
entirely. Them's the breaks.
|
|
|
|
Sites are not entirely without influence on their neighbors, however.
|
|
There is a vague notion of "upstream" and "downstream" related to the
|
|
direction of high-volume news flow. To the extent that "upstream"
|
|
sites decide what traffic they will carry for their "downstream"
|
|
neighbors, those "upstream" sites have some influence on their
|
|
neighbors' participation in Usenet. But such influence is usually
|
|
easy to circumvent; and heavy-handed manipulation typically results in
|
|
a backlash of resentment.
|
|
|
|
PERIODIC POSTINGS
|
|
-----------------
|
|
To help hold Usenet together, various articles (including this one)
|
|
are periodically posted in newsgroups in the "news" hierarchy. These
|
|
articles are provided as a public service by various volunteers.
|
|
They are few but valuable. Learn them well.
|
|
|
|
Among the periodic postings are lists of active newsgroups, both
|
|
"standard" (for lack of a better term) and "alternative." These
|
|
lists, maintained by Gene Spafford, reflect his personal view of
|
|
Usenet, and as such are not "official" in any sense of the word.
|
|
However, if you're looking for a description of subjects discussed on
|
|
Usenet, or if you're starting up a new Usenet site, Gene's lists are
|
|
an eminently reasonable place to start.
|
|
|
|
PROPAGATION
|
|
-----------
|
|
In the old days, when UUCP over long-distance dialup lines was the
|
|
dominant means of article transmission, a few well-connected sites had
|
|
real influence in determining which newsgroups would be carried where.
|
|
Those sites called themselves "the backbone."
|
|
|
|
But things have changed. Nowadays, even the smallest Internet site
|
|
has connectivity the likes of which the backbone admin of yesteryear
|
|
could only dream. In addition, in the U.S., the advent of cheaper
|
|
long-distance calls and high-speed modems has made long-distance
|
|
Usenet feeds thinkable for smaller companies.
|
|
|
|
There is only one pre-eminent site for UUCP transport of Usenet in the
|
|
U.S., namely UUNET. But UUNET isn't a player in the propagation wars,
|
|
because it never refuses any traffic. UUNET charges by the minute,
|
|
after all; and besides, to refuse based on content might jeopardize
|
|
its legal status as an enhanced service provider.
|
|
|
|
All of the above applies to the U.S. In Europe, different cost
|
|
structures favored the creation of strictly controlled hierarchical
|
|
organizations with central registries. This is all very unlike the
|
|
traditional mode of U.S. sites (pick a name, get the software, get a
|
|
feed, you're on). Europe's "benign monopolies," long uncontested, now
|
|
face competition from looser organizations patterned after the U.S.
|
|
model.
|
|
|
|
NEWSGROUP CREATION
|
|
------------------
|
|
The document that describes the current procedure for creating a new
|
|
newsgroup is entitled "How To Create A New Newsgroup." Its common
|
|
name, however, is "the guidelines."
|
|
|
|
If you follow the guidelines, it is probable that your group will be
|
|
created and will be widely propagated.
|
|
|
|
HOWEVER: Because of the nature of Usenet, there is no way for any user
|
|
to enforce the results of a newsgroup vote (or any other decision, for
|
|
that matter). Therefore, for your new newsgroup to be propagated
|
|
widely, you must not only follow the letter of the guidelines; you
|
|
must also follow its spirit. And you must not allow even a whiff of
|
|
shady dealings or dirty tricks to mar the vote. In other words, don't
|
|
tick off system administrators; they will get their revenge.
|
|
|
|
So, you may ask: How is a new user supposed to know anything about the
|
|
"spirit" of the guidelines? Obviously, he can't. This fact leads
|
|
inexorably to the following recommendation:
|
|
|
|
>> If you are a new user, don't try to create a new newsgroup. <<
|
|
|
|
If you have a good newsgroup idea, then read the "news.groups"
|
|
newsgroup for a while (six months, at least) to find out how things
|
|
work. If you're too impatient to wait six months, then you really
|
|
need to learn; read "news.groups" for a year instead. If you just
|
|
can't wait, find a Usenet old hand to run the vote for you.
|
|
|
|
Readers may think this advice unnecessarily strict. Ignore it at your
|
|
peril. It is embarrassing to speak before learning. It is foolish to
|
|
jump into a society you don't understand with your mouth open. And it
|
|
is futile to try to force your will on people who can tune you out
|
|
with the press of a key.
|
|
|
|
THE CAMEL'S NOSE?
|
|
-----------------
|
|
As was observed above in "What Usenet Is Not," Usenet as a whole is
|
|
not a democracy. However, there is exactly one feature of Usenet that
|
|
has a form of democracy: newsgroup creation.
|
|
|
|
A new newsgroup is unlikely to be widely propagated unless its sponsor
|
|
follows the newsgroup creation guidelines; and the current guidelines
|
|
require a new newsgroup to pass an open vote.
|
|
|
|
There are those who consider the newsgroup creation process to be a
|
|
remarkably powerful form of democracy, since without any coercion, its
|
|
decisions are almost always carried out. In their view, the
|
|
democratic aspect of newsgroup creation is the precursor to an
|
|
organized and democratic Usenet Of The Future.
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, some consider the democratic aspect of the
|
|
newsgroup creation process a sham and a fraud, since there is no power
|
|
of enforcement behind its decisions, and since there appears little
|
|
likelihood that any such power of enforcement will ever be given it.
|
|
For them, the appearance of democracy is only a tool used to keep
|
|
proponents of flawed newsgroup proposals from complaining about their
|
|
losses.
|
|
|
|
So, is Usenet on its way to full democracy? Or will property rights
|
|
and mistrust of central authority win the day? Beats me.
|
|
|
|
IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...
|
|
---------------------
|
|
Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on
|
|
Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is
|
|
carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry
|
|
alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you
|
|
have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?
|
|
|
|
That doesn't mean you are without options. Depending on the nature of
|
|
your site, you may have some internal political recourse. Or you
|
|
might find external pressure helpful. Or, with a minimal investment,
|
|
you can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capable
|
|
of taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, and
|
|
UNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at least
|
|
two UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range.
|
|
|
|
No matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help. Even if
|
|
those who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they will
|
|
almost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do.
|
|
|
|
By the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site is
|
|
doing, only the administrator and owner of that site have any
|
|
authority to do anything about it. Persuade them that the user in
|
|
question is a problem for them, and they might do something -- if they
|
|
feel like it, that is.
|
|
|
|
If the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site from
|
|
which she posts, forget it; you can't win. If you can, arrange for
|
|
your newsreading software to ignore articles from her; and chalk one
|
|
up to experience.
|
|
|
|
WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
|
|
USENET AS SOCIETY
|
|
--------------------
|
|
Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
|
|
of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
|
|
learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
|
|
different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
|
|
be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
|
|
beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
|
|
face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
|
|
buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
|
|
The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.
|
|
|
|
-- Nick Szabo
|
|
|
|
WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
|
|
USENET AS ANARCHY
|
|
--------------------
|
|
Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
|
|
|
|
-- Unknown
|
|
--
|
|
Gene Spafford
|
|
Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences
|
|
Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
|
|
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone: (317) 494-7825
|