From: jim@tadusa.uucp (Jim Thompson)
Subject: Re: Austin Free-Net?
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:03:52 GMT

> I'm sorry to say that 90% of the people *I* know who might be interested in  
> a "Free-Net" type system don't WANT SLIP, and would not get involved if  
> they had to use such a thing just to get access. It's the name of the game  
> that not everyone has to have all the technology.

I believe that people are quite used to having someone say:

"Load this disk on your system, here is your configuration information,
follow the directions on-screen."

Prodigy (blech) does this, so does CompuServe (blech again).  There is
no reason to think that the typical user can't deal with this level of
abstraction.

I do agree that it would be a mistake to make the typical user deal
with the details of an IP connection.

> Sure, I'm used to having an Internet host on my desk, and I wouldn't give  
> it up, but a large number of the people only want the SERVICES, not the  
> connection itself, there is a major difference.  Also, as I've said in  
> another article, being on Internet is one thing, being useful to it is  
> another. Right now, with the shortage of host numbers (primarily B class  
> which is what we would have to get), I think it's an absurd proposition to  
> try and give everyone and their dog an IP address (which is what SLIP  
> connections would effectively do).  Not to mentiolarge percentage of people  
> wouldn't have any desire to deal with such things.

I see no way to provide 'services' without a connection.  If you're
going to claim that an async connection, with twisted flow-control and
a single session will do for the normal person, then I think you need
to take a good look at where the software tech is headed.  PC
(including Mac, Amiga, etc) users are already hollering for
'background' data transfers.

Why not use a protocol (suite) that already supports this?

I don't think the point is to have a huge BBS system that just happens
to be on the Internet, and happens to have Usenet, and happens to have
e-mail.  The point is to connect people.

I don't see why we need a class B address.  We could effectively use
several Class C addresses.  With proper design, the consumer  could
dynamicly obtain her address.  Also, if we can someday show the NIC
that we would populate even 50% of a given IP address, I'm sure that
the NIC would happily give us one.

I also assert that if you attempt to support some large number of users
in the style you propose, the system will quickly become unusable.
Remember that interactive tty traffic is very difficult to support.
Attach 200 news users running '*rn', via V.32 modems to a machine, and
it will crawl.  Attach 200 NNTP sessions to a machine, and it can still
handle more.

If you don't support IP across the 'final mile' (between the user and
the other end of the connection), then its more difficult to support
file transfer to the end-point, and what PC user doesn't want to
collect GIFF files?  :-)

Point:  I don't believe its any more difficult to put the
user-interface on the machine where the information consumer is
sitting.  Any set of menus that you present the user can also be used
accross the network.  I do believe that establishing an IP connection
between the consumer and the producer enables one to use a familiar set
of utilities to accomplish the task at hand.  As previously mentioned,
the task is connection.

> Now... the original proposal was something like the Cleveland Free-Net.   
> The Free-nets are FREE, therefor all proposals to charge people have to be  
> thrown out the window.  It has been my experience also that if you charge  
> people you limit your user base, just the reverse of what the project is  
> attempting (to connect EVERYONE).  Secondly, if you do charge, it's  
> doubtful that you can charge enough to recover expenses, therefor you're  
> running at a loss anyway.  This project is a sink hole for money, and will  
> never make a profit, even if you do charge.

> If people decide they want a pay system, that's fine, but I personally will  
> continue to work on a free system.  It's the same reason I work for the  
> Free Software Foundation as a programmer . . . I don't like people having  
> their access limited to information by the profiteering of others.  I'm not  
> saying that is the goal of people, but it would look like that to the  
> outside, and we certainly would be violating the license on the FreeNet  
> software if we charged a single dime.

Note that the FSF has never mandated (or asked) that software be
zero-cost, only that it be unencumberd from any restrictions on
redistribution.  If you think otherwise, perhaps you should read the
Manifesto again. You can charge many many monetary units for GNU Emacs,
but you distribute it (for cost or not), you must be willing to
distribute the source code as well, and you can't prohibit the receiver
from further distributing the source or object.  Thus, you are
obfuscating FSF's use of the word 'Free', but then, you're trying to
make a point, right?

Profit is not a four letter word, otherwise RMS and others could not in
good conscious support the existence of Cygnus.  Further, you're not
the only individual who has contributed to the FSF.

Point: any useful system has costs asociated with maintenance, phone
lines, etc.  Anyone who is going to be successful will either need to
absorb these costs, out of some supposed kindness, or must somehow
recover these costs.

> I might sound like a doomsayer, but I think people have gotten away from  
> the original question and perhaps the GOAL, and instead are looking at it  
> from a "technical" point of view.  How many people do you REALLY think WANT  
> NNTP to their house?
> 
> Everyone I know wants UseNet, but that's not NNTP, that's just access to  
> UseNet.  In fact, almost none want the hassle of having to handle the  
> networking, they would rather just start up a newsreader and READ, not  
> having to worry about whether they have their IP address correct and  
> whether the MX forwarding record is correct so they get their mail.

Indeed, if everyone wants access to Usenet, and NNTP (or NNRP) provides
access to Usenet, then NNRP seems to be able to satisfy everyone.  No?
If the GOAL is to connect people, that it can only be done with a
connection, no?  I think we're at the point of attempting to define
"connection".

So, everyone want access, but they don't want to mess with the bits,
right?  So, provide an easy, fool-proof way to obtain access.

I already know of one decent attempt at letting an everyday user (a
company president who could care *less* about what SLIP is), connect
into his corporate network with a simple push of a 'button'.

> I think we all need to sit down in person and discuss this, as little real  
> progress is being made over the computer. SLIP/PPP is a great idea, but it  
> can't be the only solution, and it isn't the best for many (most) people.

Agreed, this message reads like I'm flaming, and I'm not.  Someplace
with good coffee, please.  :-)

Jim

P.S.  I've always wanted to put a system up that had suser() patched to
always return TRUE.  Think of it as a social experiment, everyone gets
a large stick, and the objective is to ensure that the system stays up.
(Actually, there is no objective, but if the system continually crashes,
or is otherwise unstable, then fewer individuals can enjoy it.)

Perhaps if AustiNet actually happens, I'll find a 386-something and run
BSD on it, including the "#define suser() 1" patch.
Newsgroups: austin.eff