From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,news.misc,sci.econ,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Defending Technology: Pt II (Usenet News) Draft for Comment
Date: 30 Sep 1992 15:46:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) says:

>In article <19jktcINNobv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>>     Following is a revised draft of Part II of an article for 
>>the upcoming Amateur Computerist Supplement on USENET News.
>> 
>>     When it was first initiated in 1979, the USENET network was 
>>made possible as a result of the capabilities built into the UNIX 
>>operating system and its networking capacity known as UUCP. (i.e. 
>>UNIX to UNIX Copy Protocol) Now, however, this netnews network 
>>involves most of the great variety of computers and operating 
>>systems in use today. This network traffic is carried under a 
>>set of standards known as the transmission control protocol/inter-
>>net protocol, (i.e. tcp/ip (internet) protocol) called NNTP (Net 
>>News Transfer Protocol).
>
>No, TCP/IP has nothing to do with USENET.  It's orthogonal.  And UUCP

What does orthogonal mean? 

Is it that the netnews is carried on various networks like
the internet (which operates via a set of common protocols or
standards?) and other networks as well like uucp ?

>still carries a great deal of USENET.   Ask uunet how many phone
>lines that they, as one site alone, have for uucp traffic.
>
>> 
>>     USENET News is reported to involve 3,000,000 users world 
>>wide. It was initiated in 1979 by Tom Truscott and James Ellis, 
>
>It's estimated to involve that many people, not reported.  And that
>number is, according to my own tests, considerably higher than the
>real number.
>
Well estimated does seem a more precise word - but it does
seem that usenet gets to quite a large number of people.

>>graduate student Mark Horton and high school student Matt Glick-
>>man. This version was released to the public as "B" News, version 
>
>Hey, Matt, whatever happened to you?  You still out there?
>(Mark is where he's been for ages, he just doesn't post much any
>more.  Smart man.)

No its sad that somehow some of the unsung heroes of usenet 
are no longer active on it. It's clear to me that they 
contributed a great deal.

>
>>was conveyed. And the fact that posts were entered into the 
>>"public domain" was established as an essential principle of the 
>>net.
>
>Good lord, we just had 500 megabytes of debate on this matter, and
>this mistaken notion still comes up?
>
Well, it doesn't help to say that there's been 500 megabytes of
debate if there is no summary of it that can be given - 
somehow objectively posts do enter into the public domain unless
one is able to start registering copyrights at some point nad 
also is prepared to go to court to defend violation. And it seems
that that's not really what the majority of the people who post
to usenet are interested in.

If there is some other conclusion that has been arrived at 
via 500 megabytes of debate - please clarify.

>>governs new groups in what is known as the "Seven Sisters" 
>
>I've never heard that term before.  It must be recent.  (I abandoned
>news.groups in a brief fit of intelligence about a year ago.)
>
>>hierarchy which was the collection of the seven newsgroups which 
>>were originally known as USENET news. (USENET was originally 
>>defined as those sites receiving the seven main groups comp, 
>>misc, news, rec, sci. soc, and talk newsgroups, and the group 
>>news.announce.important)(12)  There is also an alt hierarchy 
>
>Nah, some people looking for a definition of whether a site was
>on the net said, "it's if you get net.general."  This was ages before
>things like comp existed.

When was net.general?

>
>>which includes alt, gnu and other groups. A more informal 
>>procedure is provided for creating an alt group. The guidelines 
>
>That's the understatement of the year.
>
But the alt groups seem to maintain much of the spirit of usenet :-)

>>     Many on USENET News call the structure which functions 
>>anarchic. But, Jean Jacques Rousseau, in "A Discourse on 
>>Political Economy",  explains that the best laws are those which 
>>the population implements voluntarily rather than via force. Thus 
>
>That's what anarchy is.  Anarchy is not the absence of order or
>cooperation.  It is the absence of government and police.   So many
>think the two must be the same; this is the most common misunderstanding
>of anarchy.   USENET is the world's first large functional anarchy.
>
No rules that are followed or restrictions that are adhered to 
are not anarchy - they are a form of *good* government.

Anarchy as I understand it is the absence of rules or laws - 
not the voluntary adherence to them.

>>"Netiquette" is a system of rules or standards that users on the 
>>net are encouraged to follow. Also, commercial traffic and com-
>>mercial uses of netnews are strictly limited and circumscribed be-
>>cause of the public funds being expended for its development. (17) 
>
>This is false.  Commercial use of netnews is rampant.  The most popular
>groups (read the group popularity stats) are mostly the commercial,
>100% advertising ones.   It always has been rampant.  I do not know

But somehow commercial use is restricted - (though there seems an
effort currently to change this unfortunately) - and somehow this
restriction allows usenet to be something very different from what it
would be if there wasn't the restriction. 

>what the phrase "public funds being expended for its development" means
>so I won't comment on it.  As far as I know there has never been any
>official spending of public money on USENET, though there has been lots
>of unofficial spending in private sector fashion by people at publicly
>funded places.  (There's a massive difference.  The government buys
>paper clips, this does not make the paper clip industry part of the
>public sector.)
>-- 
Well, somehow there seems to be the obligation of those who are
part of it to contribute to it, not to make it into something that
is their own - 

(This in distinction to when I worked supposedly as a public school
teacher at a private large corporation. The corporation took over the 
public school and made it do what the corporation wanted of it - at
public expense - It seems that usenet functions the opposite - that
those who participate in it have an obligation to it, rather than
to using it for their own private purposes.)

I have heard of universities that are public supporting people
to contribute to usenet and help it develop - also in Michigan
the NSF network is funded with public funds and is one of the networks
that carries usenet. Those are two examples that come to mind, but
I'm sure there are others.

>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
>

          Ronda

-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Xref: sparky alt.amateur-comp:71 comp.misc:3884