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 15:15:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.230750.17304@tic.com> jsq@tic.com (John Quarterman)  
writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.223633.26440@tic.com>  
petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes:
> >As for connecting a HighSchool to Internet, it has been done, however,  
> >there are a lot of responsibilities that whoever does the work is going  
to  
> >have to take on.
> 
> Is it necessary to discourage them?

No, but it is necessary to be realistic in both expectations and desires.   
Wanting Internet just so you can send mail is overkill, which is something  
I've been trying to avoid during this whole discussion.  Dropping a PPP  
line into everyone's house is a great "technological feat" but what purpose  
does it serve if someone only wants to check their mail?
 
> The host requirements RFCs have been out since 1989.  In addition,
> low level access networks like PSINet and AlterNet are perfectly capable
> of connecting a DOS machine or a Mac in a way that can provide initial
> access without worrying about that.

Correct, but as I understand it, the requirements are being tightened.  The  
question comes ot me to ask: "What service do you want?"  Internet access  
isn't the appropriate solution to every problem in the world as some people  
want to purport.  In fact, if I just wanted to read mail, I wouldn't want  
Internet access, as it would open up a can of worms best left alone.

> They don't have to do everything all at once....  Just setting up a UUCP
> link with mail using waffle on a DOS box would give them mail, which  
would
> help drum interest for a later Internet connection.

I agree, but some people seem to think PPP/SLIp is the ONLY answer to  
everyone's problems.  I say that you give to each as they need.  If UUCP  
fits the bill, that's what you use.  Also, people need to understand that  
UUCP != Internet, UseNet != Internet.  Internet is a network, not a service  
persay, if that makes any sense.

> NSF doesn't run CIX.

And CIX isn't everything, there's a large balance to be struck.  I think  
the "FreeNet" idea fits the NSFnet better than it does the CIX network,  
since we're not in it to make money.

> Ah, I've seen that argument before.  The average ill-prepared student
> won't really know how to get into much trouble.  And there are ways
> of limiting access if necessary.

Correct, that's what I'm proposing.  Give to people as they need it, not  
necessarily as they want it (especially if the want is purely one driven by  
"prestige").  I've dealt with public access machines enough in the past  
couple years (The Free Software Foundation) to know what will happen when  
you give people almost unlimited access to Internet.

> That is quite true.  Administration is the biggest cost.

And the one that few individuals and schools are capable of handling.  I  
don't think that the FreeNet should become everyone's system admin.

> But they don't have to do everything at once.

Agreed, and I don't think some will ever want "everything".

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