🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Sep14.163601.15895@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.145239.13719@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>>is an asymetric 1200/75 baud.
>>>Some Minitel terminals support 80x24 but there's no way around the internal
>>>modem. France Telecom plans a second generation "high-performance" terminal
>>>working at a blazing 4800 bps. Wheee.

>I'm listening, and I knew this all before. Think about it. If you try and
>make something cheaper, you cut it back. In the case of modems,
>who can type faster then 75 baud anyway. Receiveing at 1200, sending at 75.
>Makes sense (at the time).
>As for the 4800 I hadn't heard of that.

I read in comp.dcom.telecom that even if you had a v.32 modem, it's
still 1200 baud, that's all the USWest end will do.  Fooey.

>There are
>emulators free of charge out there for Mac and PC (I have them both),
>and maybe you want to program one for X?

Same article in telecom mentioned that a standard videotex emulator won't
work, it uses a customized version of the protocol.

>I reiterate: People on the net (andrew in particular) are too narrowly focused
>on the net. They have learned to live with it. Most people don't.
>Most people don't and don't have the high expectations as we do (see Prodigy).

Ok, so, applying this analogy to cars:  We here have this cool solar powered
flying cars, that fold up and go in your pocket, and they're available to
just about anyone, and much cheaper than normal cars, but the only way to
get one is to kind of stumble into the dealerships, which are mostly
unmarked and often loated inside other companies.  The rest of the world
is still driving normal cars.  Your statement, by analogy, means that since
the rest of the people don't have high expectations, we shouldn't try to
make our cool flying cars well publicized and readily available.

I disagree, too, with the notion of expectations.  "Most people" don't
have a clue what to expect when it comes to computers, bbss, etc.; they
just know what they see elsewhere.  The internet is not publicized, you
don't see it being done on TV news, so "most people" don't know it
exists, therefore they can't imagine it.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't
be given the opportunity to try it, and if they were, they'd probably
like it a whole lot better than a videotex based junkheap.

Most folks, once they find out about the internet, are like "wow, this
is great!  It's better than X" for X=prodigy, compuserve, etc.

So I disagree that it's just for us elite techfolk.

>I would like to see the net and netnews and email more widespread than
>it is, and I think Andrew is doing a fabulous job bringing it
>to people via nyx (and I wish you the best for the future.. I like
>your dream), but that doesn't mean everything else has to live by
>such high standards as imposed by us net-people.

I think they deserve it; it's our job to educate "them" on what they
could have if they wanted to.  Then let them decide.  But right now all
that gets advertised are the clunky costly systems like this directory
thing, prodigy, etc.

I will continue with my war cry of "Internet for the masses!" until
everyone has the opportunity to choose.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"