From: gentry@access.digex.com (gentry)
Subject: Re: Network Use
Summary: network use bandwith etc. 
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:20:15 GMT
Expires: Fri, 29 May 1992 04:00:00 GMT



	With all the various debate & complaints over time, the toughest one
to deal with seems to be the network use & resources issue.
Since 100% of muds of all type use text based information transfer, it would 
seem to me that the network traffic generated is something that could be 
investigated without problems of "what type of mud" is being run. I cannot
see how any of the diffrent mud types would generate much diffrence traffic
wise since it's all text based.
	This is the one area that muds can be criticly and realisticly 
examined, and still have all muds be included. As long as care is taken in
generating the figures, I don't see why it cannot be done. (that last statement
is an indication of my ignorance, if there's a good reason, I'd love to know.)
It would also go a long way to put down exactly what network resources are
used by MUDS. And, I imagine, it might actually solve and rationalize soem
of the pro-mud / anti-mud debate that flies around and causes so much problems.
	Perhaps after those kinds of figures are avalible, the real problems
of that have to do with muds at local sites will be dealt with without people
throwing around all sorts of uninformed garbage about network policies at local
sites.
	I have found the debate occuring over the Aussie network stuff, and the
rest of the network debate to be one of the best, and most informative threads
I've read in usenet to date. I never thought I'd say that in this group, but
I'm rather amazed to find a high level of fact and rational discussion!

IMHO, I think the debate that is currently happingin about the Aussie action,
and about the network load of Muds in general points to a very serious 
bandwith envelope that's being pushed. It's real easy to focus on this or that
as the source of problems (alt groups in news is one I've heard, ftp's of gifs,
etc etc. etc.) but they all point to a problem in resources that's developing.
Blaming one particular activity, (insert network related activity of choice
here) is counterproductive to a degree. It simply does not address the 
overall issue. I would hope to see the issue of Network load looked at in a
more broad way. At this point I'm becoming convinced that the problems are NOT
just one thing, but rather are symptomatic of overall network condtions.
I'm not one of these fools who is ranting about the "imminent death of the net"
becasue I think that that, and the related areguments are semi-bogus. But I do
think that the overall issues are being avoided somewhat.
	I belive that the day when serious enhancment of the net is going to
have to be done soon, I would prefer to see it done before usenet, and the rest
of the community goes into a total screaming counterproductive spasm that
completly hinders the (by then) real need for solutions.

	To that end, I belive it would be extremly useful if the network useage
of muds could be benchmarked realisticly. If for no other reason than the 
type of information transfered in Mud related packets is growing with no end
in site from the use of all sorts of non-mud related things. (talk, library &
other information related services, database applications etc. etc. etc.)

				Gentry

PS, on a side note, as for the "legitimacy" of muds,
most all universities provide organized sports (games)
for thier students. These provide recreation and exersie
of the body. Muds are recreation too. They exersize the mind.
They should be viewed in that context. And probably, if they
wer approached in that context, problems would diminish.


All my opinions are my own, If you don't like them,
well, basicly don't read them. It's your choice and right.