🚀 go-pugleaf

David H. Rothman (rothman@clark.net) wrote:
: Actually the Net should be more local, not
: less.

Hmmm... I like my Internet global. Otherwise, what use is it?

: I can't help it that some Net providers 
: offer every newsgroup. That's their decision. 
: No one has ever talked about formally giving the 
: proposed newsgroup more than local distribution. 
: This would be a local group, not an alt. one.

"Local" distribution is still quite huge.

My point *exactly* is that you can't help it being propagated
all over the place. A mailing list would be a very efficient
use of the net for this purpose, because the discussion would
only circulate among interested parties.

: If skeptics can't manage the present number of 
: groups, then they might want to change providers 
: or news readers.

I'm "managing" fine, but I have concern for the size and
complexity of news feeds, as should anyone who cares about
anything other than getting their share of bandwidth, IMHO.

: "Local" is key. The last thing users need is to
: have to hop from network to network, or from BBS
: to BBS, to keep up with events in their own 
: towns. Unite folks in the same geographical area 
: and these forums will count more. 

Actually, this *is* a good use for a BBS. All of the
residents are a local call away. They don't even need
an Internet account, just a modem. You'd reach a lot
more people in Alexandria with a BBS, if that's really
your agenda. Nobody would have to *buy* a service.

While we're at it, a lot more people have E-mail than news.

: As it happens, 
: Alexandria is a city of more 100,000. If we
: can have tiny groups for local hobbyists or for
: local computer groups, surely an entire city 
: can be served on the Net. Here's to net.power!

The implication is that there will be 100,000 active
participants in your group. How many people are in the
entire area covered by dc.general? Now, how many posts
per day in dc.general? Cross-multiply. Low volume!

: Let's have the Usenet model prevail over the 
: proprietary one.

What's proprietary about a mailing list? Software's
free. What's non-proprietary about Usenet? Most have
to pay for their feeds, and some groups are commercial
and copyrighted. Linux. Majordomo. These are free things.

: We
: need many-to-many communications at the local
: level, not just the national one.

...which you can get from a mailing list, a BBS,...
How about meeting in Alexandria and discussing the
issues? You all *live* right close together, don't you?
Cliff Stoll would suggest that you go and have coffee
with your neighbors, and discuss the issues with them.

: Right now the Net has joke groups, groups for 
: Kibbology, you name it. How about some groups 
: addressing the concerns of real people in real 
: cities? Again, we're talking local, not alt.

Everyone tells jokes. Kibbologists(?) and bagpipers
and 8-track tape freaks are small in number locally;
they *need* UseNet as a forum to bring them together.
You have 100% of your interest group within a few square
miles. Why should your conversations be REPLICATED to
every connected company, university, and government
installation from Richmond to Baltimore?

: P.P.S. Some people would protest that the Web--which
: someone offered as part of a different solution--is 
: too cluttered. Can't win :-;. 

WWW is poorly organized, thus the data mining tools that
are now available to find stuff. However, if I choose
NOT to look at the "Alexandria Issues" web page, it
generates ZERO network traffic. It's not replicated on
4,000 hosts by default, either. It's in one place,
minding its own business, taking up disk that I don't
pay for, either directly or indirectly.

Why not try a mailing list first? When it gets to a thousand
lurkers and 50 posts per day, you will have an excellent
argument for a newsgroup. I still contend however, that
newsgroups are often full of noise, and lists are often not.
-- 
"But not me!        I'm smarter than that!         I worked it out.
 I'll be stretching my mouth to let those big words come right out."
                         -- Peter Gabriel -- "Big Time" -- from "So"