Article View: news.admin
Article #8371Re: A USENet domain (was Re: Domain Charters)
From: Brad Templeton
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 1990 07:58
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 1990 07:58
40 lines
2777 bytes
2777 bytes
In article <KQ+10PDxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>"Other Networks" have a central authority, Brad. Usenet inherently doesn't.
>Discussion about other networks, libraries, and so on are interesting, I
>guess, but they aren't relevant to Usenet.
Of course they are not identical, but as the closest thing around, to
suggest that they aren't relevant doesn't make any sense. Whether fish
are science or hobby -- that's something not relevant to USENET if you
ask me.
We can learn a lot from other nets -- not just the centrally controlled
ones, but the USENET similar ones, too -- and they can learn from us. I
am disturbed by the sentiment that this is not true -- that experience there
has no relevance.
The reason they never argue about names on Compuserve or a BBS may indeed
be that a central authority exists. The point I was making was that
people who make their living from (and people who spend their livings on)
networks seem to universally think names are a minor issue, not something
subject to debate.
If Compuserve thought it would please users to have them vote on forum names
and structure, they would do it. They're in the business of pleasing users.
Not only that, the money would roll in as they billed people at the
hourly rate for all the debate about names.
They choose not to do so.
Central control of the namespace is possible -- I would even say desireable.
Unfortunately, people have gotten into their minds that naming groups is
very important, and that the name czar would have some great mystical power --
too much power to put in one place. ("Gasp, he gets to decide if it's
rec.pets.fish or sci.aquaria? I want to bear his children. Oooh!")
I think the opposite could (should?) happen. We would pretty much forget
about names, and with luck, deal with more important issues, like what
groups there should be instead of what they will be called, and what direction
the software might take ... and others yet to come, I would hope.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<106195@looking.on.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!looking!bradReferences:
<_.W1K12xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Feb23.202301.3363@everexn.uucp> <38951@apple.Apple.COM> <11012@saturn.ADS.COM> <38983@apple.Apple.COM> <103276@looking.on.ca> <15208@bfmny0.UU.NET> <103905@looking.on.ca> <KQ+10PDxds13@ficc.uu.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: A USENet domain (was Re: Domain Charters) Message-ID: <106195@looking.on.ca> Date: 3 Mar 90 07:58:00 GMT References: <_.W1K12xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Feb23.202301.3363@everexn.uucp> <38951@apple.Apple.COM> <11012@saturn.ADS.COM> <38983@apple.Apple.COM> <103276@looking.on.ca> <15208@bfmny0.UU.NET> <103905@looking.on.ca> <KQ+10PDxds13@ficc.uu.net> Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 40 Class: discussion