🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3kpt0p$4a6@sequoia.picosof.com>,
sle@sensemedia.net <sle@sensemedia.net> wrote:
>Check out this url: 
>news:jnavasD5p92C.G0A@netcom.com
>
>graphics, web and video do not even raise a candle to the amount of spam 
>on the net purely from the innefficient routing of news via usenets 
>archaic protocol...
>
>look at all the reposting and quoting of articles by content not by 
>reference, clueless cross posters, and feeds filling up the 
>'superhypeway' with redundant data to be stored on countless disks, and 
>each site not actually utilizing more than a few percent of the total 
>feed.
>
>consider...
>

Not even close to being true.  Usenets store and foreward topology scales
MUCH MUCH better then a store in one place topology like the Web or FTP.

Consider:  If I have a site, and I have a feed for something, it only
takes two readers and I already have a 50% reduction in used net bandwidth
if I have a local copy then if I read it remotely.  It takes up disk,
but disk is very cheap--cheaper by far then network bandwidth.

Store and foreward also has other advantages, for example it doesn't have
to be real time.  And how about all them folks still running UUCP?

It has some disadvantages, of course, the most pronounced being propogation
time.

I suspect the best solution is a compromise,ie something like a single site,
but  with lots of cacheing.  This sort of thing is already being loked at 
(eg: the Harvest project)

(oh, and compare the amount of bandwidth used by text versus that used
by video some time!)  


-- 
Matthew Crosby                                         crosby@cs.colorado.edu
Disclaimer:  It was another country, and besides, the wench is dead.