From: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli)
Subject: Re: Austin Free-Net? 
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:13:43 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:42:51 CDT, tadusa!jim@uunet.uu.net (Jim Thompson) said:

Jim> I said it.  I was attempting to say nicely that Alternet is part
Jim> of CIX, and not part of the NSF portion of the Internet.  It came
Jim> out badly.

Well, my point is that we are perhaps looking at differnt problems.  I
still am not convinced that everyone wants, much less needs a 56K link
on Internet to their house.  I've asked a large number of "normal"
(ie, non 'wizard') people what they want.  They want information, and
they want it without having to spend more money or having to "think"
about what is going on.

Jim> I want 56k to my house.  I've had 56k IP to a previous house.
Jim> Know what?  It quickly became 'not enough', especially when my
Jim> wife was also trying to use the link.  :-)/2.

And you are "Joe Average User?"  I doubt that seriously.  I doubt you
could account for 10% of the population using computers that knows
what Internet is, much less wants it at their house.  What they want
is information, not technology.  Technology is a tool, not an end.
Please focus on the end, not the means.

Jim> Compressed-header SLIP, with the right MTU *is* usable at 2400 baud.
Jim> We've got several field sales people who use SLIP connections @ 2400
Jim> baud (no V.42/MNP compression, either) to stay connected, exchange
Jim> e-mail, etc.

If you want to push technology, SLIP is being superceeded by PPP,
which is more complex as I recall, and therefore more dependent on
speed.  Just because it "works" doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Jim> In fact, for the style of computing you deem necessary to support
Jim> the low-budget user (tty sessions), SLIP is really no slower than
Jim> a dial-in line at the same speed.  I doubt that a TCP/IP stack
Jim> exists for a Commadore VIC-20, however.

Perhaps it isn't slower, but why is it needed?  Why would you run
TCP/IP so you can have a single text session?  That's like running
XWindows so you can have a VT-100 terminal on your screen.  It's
technological overkill and just plain silly.

Jim> Right, I agree, and I suspect that many others do as well, even
Jim> if you seem to have just discounted NASA out of existence.  :-)

Good thing NASA isn't in Austin, isn't it?  Again, look at the REAL
world rather than the 5% technological elite.

Jim> Ok, say we provide telnet access to some host, so the
Jim> cpu-challenged have somewhere to login and read news/mail/...
Jim> Can we please still require that the end-user 'terminal' be able
Jim> to support some IP stack, and an over-the-wire encoding of IP
Jim> (e.g. SLIP or PPP)?  You won't believe how much simpler this
Jim> makes the administration.

Having dealth with this type of thing, you won't believe how much more
complicated it becomes.  You now have to deal with rampant abuse of
telnet.  Why do you think MIT has restricted it's TERMINUS system
(which is HUGE)?  Why do you think UT has limited it's CCNET?  It's
not purely fascism, it's a matter of reducing the cost of dealing with
problems.  You act as if SLIP would be the norm, I say for the
foreeable future it will be the exception.  The system should not be
designed for the 5%, it should be designed for the 90%.

Jim> I propose one, (to use a bad word) "open" solution.  You can
Jim> connect to the network, use IP (over SLIP or PPP) to do so.  Once
Jim> there, connect to any service you like.  If there are free
Jim> services (a computer where you want to read your mail by logging
Jim> in and running 'elm') you want to use, fine.  The support of your
Jim> could-be-one-off terminal needs can be negotiated between you and
Jim> the administration of that machine.  If you're a sophisticated
Jim> user, with sophisticated (costly?) equiptment (You've got your
Jim> own SGI at home), then you also have access to the same network,
Jim> and the same set of services.  If you want to use some for-pay
Jim> service ("The Lydia Live collection of sound bytes"), this is
Jim> also permitted.  Choice.

It is a "bad word" because it's inappropriate.  It's "open" only to
those with the resources (ie money) to use it.  We might not charge
for access, but we've made another kind of fee, a system upgrade for a
large number of people.  I don't think saying that terminals are "one
off" is being any where near realistic.  That would be like saying we
should only support GUI interfaces.  Maybe it's an option worth
considering, but it's not the dominant means.  

Also, I don't believe in for-pay having ANY place in this system.
Period, no exceptions.  This should be a non-profit group, in the
business to provide information, not a for-profit oganization designed
to further the pocket books of it's members.

I agree ... choice.. unhindered by technological contraints.  Let
those who want more have more, but let those who don't use what is
necessary.  To munge Marx:

        "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

That is a good phrase for my opinion of this project.  Saying that
everyone NEEDS or even WANTS SLIP is proposterous and shows a blatent
disregard for reality.

Jim> To do otherwise, and erect a large single-node BBS system is to:

Jim> a) not expand the art,

What art?  Technology?  we aren't a technological test bed persay, we
are something that wants to get something done, to provide the service

Jim> b) not lead the way,

You can lead without falling off the cliff because you were too busy
looking at the stars to notice the ground has fallen away below you.

Jim> c) not educate,

Education means reality, not someone version of what it is.  There's
no reason that there can't be subgroups who work on other projects,
but to tie the entire project down to some ideal is absurd.  I would
rather have something that works in 6 months than a great idea that
MIGHT work in a year.  No reason you can keep working on that project
that'll be done in a year, but not at the cost of getting the job
DONE.  Too many projects have died from being too chrome plated and
having too many blinkenlights.

Jim> in other words, limit your audience to those who will endure
Jim> archaic models of computing and communication, thus limiting the
Jim> growth of the individuals who use your system.  Do we really need
Jim> to futher justfy the DOS/MAC/...-users complain that Unix is
Jim> cryptic?

NO, I'm saying DON'T limit your audience to those who can afford YOUR
model of "the future."  I honestly don't care to get involved in the
Mac/DOS discussion.  Both have problems as od Unix, and the position
is to get the job done, not to play religious warfare.  

Providing a BASE interface that is simple and basic doesn't mean you
can't provide something mroe advanced, unless you are incapable of
believing in the ability to do more than one thing.

Jim> There is nothing wrong with socialism that can't be matched by a 'bug'
Jim> in any other form of social order.

Such as dellusions of grandeure? :-)
  
Jim> You sound as though you want to make access to information a
Jim> right, instead of the privilege that it is.  In our society, many
Jim> things are unequitable.  You seem to be proposing that we must
Jim> provide access via any method imaginable.  By doing so, you limit
Jim> the growth of the networked society.  I would like to understand
Jim> who these denizen hordes of computer users who have $200
Jim> computers *and* want access to Usenet are.

I would surmise that you believe information should remain a privelege
rather than a right?  Control held like a noose around the throat of
other individuals?  Not any method, but a variaty catering to those
who have no need.  What of the person who can't afford a computer, but
shares one with someone else?  Why not let them get involved for a few
dollars?  Why require them to invests thousands better spend on other
resources.  

Who said UseNet . . . certainly not I, that's not the point, the point
is INFORMATION, there is a difference.  UseNet is a small tip of the
iceberg.

Jim> We know how to solve the public terminal lab case, in fact, we know how
Jim> to solve almost any individual case.  I still think the point is
Jim> connecting people, not providing access.  Its a austin freeNET, not
Jim> austin freeBBS.  If you would like to erect austin freeBBS, or austin
Jim> freeUNIX, or whatever you would like to call it, that is fine.  Its
Jim> probably also fine if you connect Austin FreeBBS to Austin FreeNet.
Jim> There may well be many, many connection points, some free, some not,
Jim> some well run, some run in anarchy, each with its own unique 'flavor'.
Jim> But the real feature is the network, the connection, and this is what
Jim> we must build.

Connecting only those willing to invest money?  Connecting only those
who meet some arbitrary standard of requirements.  Must a net be
physical?  A network is any distribution of information... must it be
using SLIP? I don't see why it should.

We must build a resource . . . you seem too busy with technological
granduere to grasp the problem and the goal.  The solution is
immaterial so long as the goal is reached.  The goal seems to me to be
to connect (in some manner) as many people as possible.

Your approach places a limit on the number of people.  It places a
financial/technological line across the page and says that only a
small group may become "enlightened," only a small group may know some
information.  Your propose not to END the restriction and limits on
information, but to instead move them to a technological ground rather
than a political ground.

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli
| petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu, petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
| All opinions are my own, if they even belong to anyone.



Newsgroups: austin.eff