Incoming Alert: AOL Usenet Access
Ron Asbestos Dippold
America Online has been doing final testing of their Usenet access.
They'll probably blow a deadline or two, but they're pretty close to
dumping 600,000 newbies on Usenet. Who'll be the first to start
trying to create Usenet versions of all the AOL groups?
--
Think big. Pollute the Mississippi.
Jon Tara
>In case you haven't been following a few of the appropriate groups,
>America Online has been doing final testing of their Usenet access.
>They'll probably blow a deadline or two, but they're pretty close to
>dumping 600,000 newbies on Usenet. Who'll be the first to start
>trying to create Usenet versions of all the AOL groups?
Well, now that you've demonstrated your superiority, do you any suggestions on
dealing with the additional traffic?
Do we just jam more posts into already-crowded groups, or should we
intelligently plan for expansion? Do we just insult the newcomers and hope
they'll go away, or admit that maybe some of their ideas will be
worthwhile?
_____________________________________________________________________
"We have never denied the systematic wasting of
25 gigbytes of newsspool between 1992 and 1994"
S*rdar Arg*c
Jon Tara | Internet: jt...@crash.cts.com
| CompuServe: 76477,3422
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>>dumping 600,000 newbies on Usenet. Who'll be the first to start
>>trying to create Usenet versions of all the AOL groups?
>Well, now that you've demonstrated your superiority, do you any suggestions on>dealing with the additional traffic?
Well, actually the first order of business is probably an emergency
operation for your rectocranial inversion, as that's potentially life
threatening. Real life problems first.
Stating the fact that there will be large number of newbies coming on
to to the net, with the problems that attend any such influx, is not
insulting the newcomers. The whole concept would require that you
believe that all newbies act as a group or act alike, which they
don't. Some of them are sure to cause problems on this group, most
won't, the ones who will cause problems here are the ones we need to
worry about. For this group it will include the inevitable percentage
who decide to create groups without having a clue about the process.
The whole post was nothing more than a "heads-up" to those news.groups
readers who, like me, may have been unaware that the AOL-Usenet
connection is extremely close to being made fully available to all AOL
users. People should know what's happening.
>Do we just insult the newcomers and hope they'll go away, or admit
>that maybe some of their ideas will be worthwhile?
If we decide on insulting them, I strongly hope you'll accept the
position as head of our Offense Fabrication Division. Whatever your
screwup as a newbie was, it must have been a doozy to cause this level
of insecurity. Is there anyone here who seriously cares take the
position that no AOL user will have any worthwhile ideas? Raise your
hands.
--
May you live to see Judgment day and may all your relatives move in on you.
Coyt D Watters
Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>In article <rdippold.762479054@happy> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>
>>In case you haven't been following a few of the appropriate groups,
>>America Online has been doing final testing of their Usenet access.
>>They'll probably blow a deadline or two, but they're pretty close to
>>dumping 600,000 newbies on Usenet. Who'll be the first to start
>>trying to create Usenet versions of all the AOL groups?
>
>Well, now that you've demonstrated your superiority, do you any suggestions on
>dealing with the additional traffic?
>
>Do we just jam more posts into already-crowded groups, or should we
>intelligently plan for expansion? Do we just insult the newcomers and hope
>they'll go away, or admit that maybe some of their ideas will be
>worthwhile?
Actually, they should be treated as any other newbie, same as the yearly
influx of new freshmen.
BUT:
At least Ron was warning us that we're going to see a MAJOR influx of
"that's-not-how-it-works-on-AOL" clueless newbies. We (the current
UseNet community) are going to have to go through the process which we
see every fall, and have some patience with them.
Instead of flaming the newbie for posting inappropriately the first time,
take the time to point out what they did wrong and how to avoid that
mistake. Many will not realize that TYPING ALL CAPS IS A FAUX-PAS, or that
the group they really need is under a different name (posting video game
questions to the frp groups for example). A few calm words pointing them
the right direction usually works.
As a maintainer of a FAQ, I appreciate the advance warning. I'll have to
keep my FAQs handy so I can mail them in response to clueless postings.
I'm also going to get a bunch of questions from the newbies who do read the
FAQs first. The net.volunteers are going to be busy if that many users
jump in at once.
-Coyt
Basalat Ali Raja
>Do we just insult the newcomers and hope
>they'll go away,
Yes; I think that is a good idea.
>or admit that maybe some of their ideas will be
>worthwhile?
Nah. How is that possible?
Basalat Ali Raja
Ron "Asbestos" Dippold <rdip...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>Is there anyone here who seriously cares take the
>position that no AOL user will have any worthwhile ideas? Raise your
>hands.
Ooops! :-)
Nick Fitzpatrick
>>>trying to create Usenet versions of all the AOL groups?
>
>>Well, now that you've demonstrated your superiority, do you any suggestions on>dealing with the additional traffic?
>
>readers who, like me, may have been unaware that the AOL-Usenet
>connection is extremely close to being made fully available to all AOL
>users. People should know what's happening.
>
allowed us to make appropriate precautions, as well as passing the
information to some AOL users, who hadn't realised that they could now
get Usenet.
Nick
Ken Weaverling
>America Online has been doing final testing of their Usenet access.
You mean it is just in testing phase so far?
Damn....
Check out ...
alt.online-services.america-online
and
alt.music.jethro-tull
The posts from AOL users are duplicated anywhere from 8-13 times. So what
we potentially have is 600,000 newbies posting stuff which is duplicated
by their posting software several times a piece.
Someone explained that if their system doesn't get immediate ack from
their feed site, they "re-post" it. I find that a bit hard to believe.
I hope it isn't true.... :-(
--
Ken Weaverling we...@dtcc.edu |*| Stanton: +1 302 454-3978
Manager of Computer Services |*| Wilmington: +1 302 573-5460
Stanton/Wilmington Campuses of |*|-----------------------------------
Delaware Technical & Community College |*| My opinions .NEQ. college's position
Mitchell Golden
to their users before they give them access? A simple help file with would
improve matters immensely. For example, AOL could distribute the Emily
Postnews guide from the Big Dummy's Guide.
We should look upon this as an opportunity to talk with 600000 new people.
Done right, it can only improve the USENET, and diffuse NET values through
society.
- Mitch Golden
David Shapiro
newsgroups will & will not be accessible to AOL users?
-- Dr. Cat
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>This is very interesting news. Ron, have you heard anything about which
>newsgroups will & will not be accessible to AOL users?
As far as I can find out, all of them, and they'll add all new groups.
This makes sense for them, as the more groups you read the more money
they make. The only question would be the controversial groups, and I
just did a scan through alt.sex and found some AOL posters.... Hmmm,
I shoulda checked the alt.binaries groups.
--
Elvis hasn't left the building, he's just in the john.
Rob May
: In article <rdippold.762479054@happy>,
: Ron "Asbestos" Dippold <rdip...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
: >In case you haven't been following a few of the appropriate groups,
: >America Online has been doing final testing of their Usenet access.
: The posts from AOL users are duplicated anywhere from 8-13 times. So what
I just saw 15 posts of the same article from an AOL user in rec.boats.
This is a major problem if it is the fault of their news software, rather
than user incompetence.
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Robert May. e-mail: rober...@rd.eng.bbc.co.uk Tel: +44 737 832361 ---
-- You may post, repost or publish *ANY* communication received from me --
----- All opinions are mine and are not necessarily shared by the BBC -----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian L Claiborn
[Flames deleted]
Stating the fact that there will be large number of newbies coming on
to to the net, with the problems that attend any such influx, is not
insulting the newcomers. The whole concept would require that you
believe that all newbies act as a group or act alike, which they
don't. Some of them are sure to cause problems on this group, most
won't, the ones who will cause problems here are the ones we need to
worry about. For this group it will include the inevitable percentage
who decide to create groups without having a clue about the process.
The whole post was nothing more than a "heads-up" to those news.groups
readers who, like me, may have been unaware that the AOL-Usenet
connection is extremely close to being made fully available to all AOL
users. People should know what's happening.
You should also know that America On-Line customers who participate
in the existing forums on AOL tend to have pretty good manners, and
a decent sense of netiquette. Whether this is inferred or actually
fed to them through documents is unclear, but they tend not to be
B1FF-types on the whole. While I doubt this will come as much
comfort to Andrew Bulhak, I think the AOL community will be less
difficult to train than the Delphi one was. I've been a participant
in both services' equivalents of newsgroups, and the AOL people win
by a mile.
Members of mailing lists that have included AOL members for over a
year now can probably testify that they weren't the crawling horror
one might expect.
[Sense deleted]
Thanks, however, for the heads-up.
christian
--
Christian Longshore Claiborn, Software Engineer, Cabletron Systems
Wes Morgan
>
>Actually, they should be treated as any other newbie, same as the yearly
>influx of new freshmen.
To be honest, I'm more concerned with the actual traffic.
In most cases, the September Massacre (or whatever you like to call
the yearly influx of freshmen) tends to hit many groups in a roughly
equivalent fashion.
I suspect, however, that this group (AOL users) will be more focused
in some respects. Keep in mind that the vast majority of AOL users,
by definition, have *some* home machine; if the general market trends
hold true, the vast majority of those will be PCs and Macintoshes.
(Note that this does not seem to apply to the yearly "freshmen influx;"
most of them seem to be using university equipment to read/post.)
What does this mean? Well, I suspect that we're going to see some
major traffic increase in some rather specific groups, namely those
discussing PCs, Microsoft Windows, and Macs. I suspect that the
traffic increase there may very well dwarf the impact in other groups.
Food for thought...
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan ----- University of Kentucky ----- mor...@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserve...@engr.uky.edu
GAT d(--) -p+ c++(++++) !l u++ e+ m* s++/++ !n h* f* !g w++ t+(++) r y+
And here's to you, Vicki Robinson; Usenet loves you more than you will know.
Leigh Melton
> I just saw 15 posts of the same article from an AOL user in rec.boats.
> This is a major problem if it is the fault of their news software, rather
> than user incompetence.
According to the zillion cancellation messages nbi.com received this
morning regarding the duplicated posts from aol.com, it's the software.
Oh, great.
L.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
Two further items on AOL:
Apparently, if their posting software doesn't get an immediate
response from the server it keeps sending it - hence the occasional
post duplicated 13 or so times. It's a major problem, but as it's a
software problem should be fixable, and they are aware of it - it's
not AOL posters trying to post it that many times out of cluelessness.
AOL does have files on Nettiquette and Read Me First prominently
presented for would-be Usenet readers. I'm note sure when these were
first set up.
--
You are loved by the multitudes. Have you been to the clinic lately?
Budi Rahardjo
>I just saw 15 posts of the same article from an AOL user in rec.boats.
>This is a major problem if it is the fault of their news software, rather
>than user incompetence.
Yup, I saw similar posts in other newsgroups. It turned out their (AOL)
system was so slow (bogged down) that the users thought they didn't click
on the send button. They clicked it again and again.
Imagine ... thousands of AOL users clicked the send button 10 times :-)
>Rob
-- budi
--
Budi Rahardjo <Budi_R...@UManitoba.Ca>
#include <std-disclaimer.h>
Unix Support - Computer Services - University of Manitoba
Blain Nelson
>Has anyone attempted to contact AOL to see if they can give some instruction
>to their users before they give them access? A simple help file with would
>improve matters immensely. For example, AOL could distribute the Emily
>Postnews guide from the Big Dummy's Guide.
Actually, I'm an AOL user who's been around the Usenet for about 6 months
now. I don't think it's going to be a really huge problem here. It may
make things a bit more tough for folks who try to read entire newsgroups
daily (I've never had nearly enough time to do that), but I don't think
things will be all that different.
To answer the question, though, AOL has had representation from EFF for
quite some time, and the Internet Center there has had copies of Zen and
the Art of Internet available for download for a very long time. There is
also a conference area attached in which people have been asking their
stupid questions and getting them answered by other AOL users who are
experienced on the Internet. Also, if the Usenet window is open, it has
only been so for a week or so, and has likely not been publicized to the
general user (I was on Saturday, and there was no announcement. I don't
think I checked Internet Center, though, and they may be announcing it
there as a kind of beta test first).
>We should look upon this as an opportunity to talk with 600000 new people.
>Done right, it can only improve the USENET, and diffuse NET values through
>society.
> - Mitch Golden
Good attitude, Mitch. You will find stupid arrogant pigheaded people
coming in from AOL. But I think they'll blend in with the stupid arrogant
pigheaded people who were already here. And there will be some quality
folks that you wouldn't find otherwise. Not only is this inevitable, I
think it's a good thing overall. Might need to feed the kill-file a bit
more, but, otherwise, it'll be okay.
Sincerely,
Blain
Zorak
haven't been on since college).
YES, AOL is dumping a half a million newbies into uncharted terrirtory.
YES, it will cause some disruption.
YES, there will be stupid people posting in the wrong places.
YES, the system is still very buggy (multiple postings being very common)
After blowing a half a dozen deadlines for their internet access, AOL has
allowed access before the system has had the bugs worked out. There was
tremendous pressure on AOL to allow us access. They advertised it, and didn't
provide it...people screamed...now we are here...for better or for worse!
Just a request to all the Usenet vets out there. Give newbies a chance to
settle in. Dont flame em too badly ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Steve Vaughn zo...@aol.com
Sysadmin "Ha ha, charade you are"
RJS Swanson Corporation
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>response from the server it keeps sending it - hence the occasional
>post duplicated 13 or so times. It's a major problem, but as it's a
>software problem should be fixable, and they are aware of it - it's
>not AOL posters trying to post it that many times out of cluelessness.
Whoops, it turns out it's a combination both.
The AOL system is so slow (gawd, it's a dog, and at 2400...) that when
the users press Send, they don't really get any feedback for a while.
So they sit there pressing Send, and the software queues up all these
Send requests!
Two problems to fix: better feedback, and don't allow double posting
of the same post unless an error occurs.
One other thing that came out from investigating the UI... the amount
of impact AOL can have on Usenet is severely restricted by the 2400
bps connection.
--
Admiration: Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves.
Basalat Ali Raja
>I suspect, however, that this group (AOL users) will be more focused
>in some respects. Keep in mind that the vast majority of AOL users,
>by definition, have *some* home machine; if the general market trends
>hold true, the vast majority of those will be PCs and Macintoshes.
>(Note that this does not seem to apply to the yearly "freshmen influx;"
>most of them seem to be using university equipment to read/post.)
>What does this mean? Well, I suspect that we're going to see some
>major traffic increase in some rather specific groups, namely those
>discussing PCs, Microsoft Windows, and Macs. I suspect that the
>traffic increase there may very well dwarf the impact in other groups.
I think, for the most part your profiling is correct, but you are
over-looking one essential element.
Most of these people are consumers. They might _own_ a Mac, or an
IBM, but they don't do much to their machines, i.e. they don't write
programs or stuff with them. They just use them.
Therefore, I do not think that they will be necessarily gathering in
the Mac or PC groups. I'd think them more likely to get into the soc
and talk groups. They are going to be taken aback by the sheer
rudeness they will meet in many cases, but I am hoping that they will
also have a civilizing effect on Usenet.
David Shapiro
: One other thing that came out from investigating the UI... the amount
: of impact AOL can have on Usenet is severely restricted by the 2400
: bps connection.
Actually, AOL has just started offering 9600 baud service. Don't know
how long it'll be before the majority of their users are taking advantage
of it, but it is there now.
-- Dr. Cat
Joel Plutchak
>Just an AOL user's response here...(I am not a Usenet newbie, btw...just
>haven't been on since college).
>
>YES, AOL is dumping a half a million newbies into uncharted terrirtory.
>YES, it will cause some disruption.
>YES, there will be stupid people posting in the wrong places.
>YES, the system is still very buggy (multiple postings being very common)
>
>After blowing a half a dozen deadlines for their internet access, AOL has
>allowed access before the system has had the bugs worked out. There was
>tremendous pressure on AOL to allow us access. They advertised it, and didn't
>provide it...people screamed...now we are here...for better or for worse!
>
>Just a request to all the Usenet vets out there. Give newbies a chance to
>settle in. Dont flame em too badly ;)
Back in the days when I paid for a commercial service like AOL, I
noticed that people in general were much more polite, at least, than
on USENET. I assumed it had something to do with not wanting to waste
money flaming, misposting, etc.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
"Dreamed I was an Eskimo/Frozen wind began to blow,
Under my boots and around my toes/Frost that bit the ground below"
- Frank Zappa, "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow", _Apostrophe'_
mitc...@news.delphi.com
>>settle in. Dont flame em too badly ;)
As you can probably tell, I too am from one of those commercial service.
I think it is rather elitest to complain about internet access for the masses.
Who is to say that the AOL community is really any different than the world
at large. We put up with the new crop of college freshment hitting the
internet each fall,
it shouldn't bge any different here. If we really believe that Usenet is
for an open exchange of views, the more, the merrier. Many of us
who subscribe to the commercial services do it merely because we work for
companies that do not provide the free net access many of you enjoy.
Since we actually pay for it, we may even find it more valuable.
Matt Messina
> For this group it will include the inevitable percentage
> who decide to create groups without having a clue about the process.
about the process (there aren't many car thieves who can't drive),
especially in the USENET hierarchies. AltNet may be inconvenienced a
bit, but let's not pretend that stupid groups weren't created before
online services provided access to Usenet.
On a totally unrelated subject, what do you think of this convention?
USENET = The big 7 just as UNIX = That thing that Novell owns
Usenet = Network News Unix = clones of above
The word, "usenet" seems to be interchanged with Network News very
often, although, technically, they're not the same. I think the word
"you" came into use because nobody felt like remembering when to say
"thou" or "thee". Future language prediction: look for one word to
replace "effect" and "affect". Wow, I don't believe I'm wasting your
time like this, sorry.
--
Matt Messina
mes...@umich.edu
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>In article <rdippold.762627800@happy> Ron, rdip...@qualcomm.com writes:
>> For this group it will include the inevitable percentage
>> who decide to create groups without having a clue about the process.
>I doubt they'll be many people creating groups who don't have a clue
>about the process (there aren't many car thieves who can't drive),
It's happened before, I don't think think it'll stop happening.
Here's what happens: Someone decides to create a group. Posts a
message to news.newusers.questions asking how to create a group.
Someone directs them to news.answers for the FAQs. They go from
there. Some of them are successful, because they're creating
non-controversial groups, they read the FAQs carefully, and there are
people who'll help them through it. Others have problems.
>bit, but let's not pretend that stupid groups weren't created before
>online services provided access to Usenet.
Who claimed this?
--
We are MicroSoft... OS/2 is irrelevant... UNIX is irrelevant...
Openess is futile... Prepare to be assimilated... -- J. Edwards
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>On a totally unrelated subject, what do you think of this convention?
>USENET = The big 7 just as UNIX = That thing that Novell owns
>Usenet = Network News Unix = clones of above
Useful, but you have to get people to subscribe to it... There's a
similar convention with computer memory sizes: k = 1000, K = 1024, b
= bits, B = bytes, M = 1024^1024, m = 1,000,000. Seems fairly simple
but there are still lots of people who haven't figured it out yet, or
who just decide to ignore it. Still, you'll never know till you try.
--
A bird in the hand is bad table manners.
Per Abrahamsen
Ron> Useful, but you have to get people to subscribe to it... There's a
Ron> similar convention with computer memory sizes: k = 1000, K = 1024, b
Ron> = bits, B = bytes, M = 1024^1024, m = 1,000,000. Seems fairly simple
Ron> but there are still lots of people who haven't figured it out yet, or
Ron> who just decide to ignore it. Still, you'll never know till you try.
Actually m = 0,001 and M = 1.000.000 in SI units, i.e. everywhere
outside US.
Jon Tara
Why does it matter? Frankly, I don't think the new users are going to buy the
"big 7 is better" snobbery, anyway. Though I don't know what AOLs plans are,
the independent providers (Netcom, local providers like MCSNet, CTSNet, etc.)
provide a full feed. (CTSNet has >7500 groups.)
Reverse snobbery regarding the "big 7" is probably more appropriate: sites
that only receive them are missing-out.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jon Tara | Internet: jt...@crash.cts.com | This space for rent.
| CompuServe: 76477,3422 |
Ismo Peltonen
Sure. Still, MB often means megabytes in the sense of 1024**2 bytes, not
exactly one million bytes.
I don't think it's good to use m to mean million, and have often
wondered how one can ask thousands for a one-byte harddrive (or what
would one do at all with harddrive of that size), but what can one do
with salespersons?
Anyway, K and k is IMHO a good way to distinguish between 1024 and 1000
(bytes/bits/etc) and m,M is a logical extension that doesn't seem right.
Another way should be devised to distinguish between those.
--
Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) ## snail Hanuripolku 5B15
Home (UUCP) Ismo.P...@tower.nullnet.fi ## mail 00420 Helsinki
Univ (inet) Ismo.P...@Helsinki.FI ## Finland
Errare humanum est.. ## phone +358-0-537515
ЖДЕжде <- Is Your link 8bit clean?
Andrew Bulhak
>Has anyone attempted to contact AOL to see if they can give some instruction
>to their users before they give them access? A simple help file with would
>improve matters immensely. For example, AOL could distribute the Emily
>Postnews guide from the Big Dummy's Guide.
What would it profit them? They don't want to look "unfriendly" to their
paying customers, and those whose environment is being despoiled by the
tourists don't pay.
>We should look upon this as an opportunity to talk with 600000 new people.
>Done right, it can only improve the USENET, and diffuse NET values through
>society.
This holds for small rates of influx. If there is a large number of
newbies arriving at any one time, the newbies do not assimilate quickly
but instead diffuse real-world values onto the Net.
And that's something to be afraid of. That means cluelessness, trendy
poseurism, bigotry, authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism,
lawsuits, closed-mindedness and other traits seen in the Real World. The
Net could become a lot more suitish and less clued in.
--
Andrew Bulhak |"beable beable beable beable beable beable beable
a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au| beable beable beable beable beable beable beable
Monash Uni, Clayton, | beable beable beable beable beable beable beable
Victoria, Australia | beable beable beable beable beable beable beable"
Andrew Bulhak
>AOL does have files on Nettiquette and Read Me First prominently
>presented for would-be Usenet readers. I'm note sure when these were
>first set up.
PU, Pluto, bless AOL to the Fields of Elysium.
This is a good example; AOL have done the responsible thing. It is too
bad that some other sites don't do this.
(As far as I know, delphi give new users a "guide to the Internet"-type
book. The user can find the correct netiquette -- if they can be
bothered to read the whole thing and take notice of everything.)
--
Andrew Bulhak |
a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au| "Does cooking a self-aware omelette, which
Monash Uni, Clayton, | probably flipped over in pain, make you a God?"
Victoria, Australia | -- 5150
John Stanley
Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>Why does it matter? Frankly, I don't think the new users are going to buy the
>"big 7 is better" snobbery, anyway.
What snobbery? I don't recall seeing anything that said that USENET was
better than non-USENET. Do you also believe that apples are better than
oranges just because oranges aren't apples?
>Reverse snobbery regarding the "big 7" is probably more appropriate: sites
>that only receive them are missing-out.
Sites that receive only USENET miss the other hierarchies, those that
don't get USENET miss the USENET hierarchies. Is this snobbery, or a
simple description of the facts?
David Shapiro
: gol...@weyl.bu.edu (Mitchell Golden) writes:
: >Has anyone attempted to contact AOL to see if they can give some instruction
: >to their users before they give them access? A simple help file with would
: >improve matters immensely. For example, AOL could distribute the Emily
: >Postnews guide from the Big Dummy's Guide.
Well, I got on AOL this weekend to check out where things stand. They
do have several textfiles giving an overview of what Usenet is, and offering
some posting guidelines based on "netiquette" guides from here on the net,
with proper attribution to Gene Spafford and others. It's placed where I
think most people will be likely to browse through some or all of the material
before looking into the actual newsgroups.
: >We should look upon this as an opportunity to talk with 600000 new people.
: >Done right, it can only improve the USENET, and diffuse NET values through
: >society.
: This holds for small rates of influx. If there is a large number of
: newbies arriving at any one time, the newbies do not assimilate quickly
: but instead diffuse real-world values onto the Net.
Actually, I don't think they're really newbies in the same sense a lot of
the fall waves of freshmen so often are. The majority of them have used a
computerized message system to participate in public discussions before - the
one on AOL. While they will be unaware of some of the issues that apply
uniquely to Usenet, at least they'll have experience with the kinds of
problems that apply to most/all computer messaging systems, and how to deal
with them.
I checked, by the way, to see if alt.binaries.pictures.erotica was
available there, and it is. Somewhat surprising for a service which,
unlike Compuserve and Genie, totally bans all nude pictures from their
file libraries... What they've done is to keep all of the "adult" groups
off their big menu of newsgroups. People that want them can use an "expert"
feature to type in the name of a newsgroup they want added to their list,
but they have to already know the name of what they want, somehow. It will
be interesting to see how effectively this policy will work for them.
-- Dr. Cat
Jorn Barger
Andrew Bulhak <a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>
>>AOL does have files on Nettiquette and Read Me First prominently
>>presented for would-be Usenet readers. I'm note sure when these were
>>first set up.
>
>PU, Pluto, bless AOL to the Fields of Elysium.
>
>This is a good example; AOL have done the responsible thing. It is too
>bad that some other sites don't do this.
Here's some bad news. Tim Ruddick explains the massive aol-assault
on a.b.o.i:
>In possible explanation, although not as an excuse,
>alt.best.of.internet seems to be one of a few that the folks here at
>AOL autosubscribe for us. A partial list of others:
>
>(alt.best.of.internet)
>(aol.newsgroups.bugs)
>(aol.newsgroups.help)
>(aol.newsgroups.suggestions)
>(aol.newsgroups.test)
>(news.newusers.questions)
So a.b.o.i is getting "anyone want to talk about potato farming?"
and "what's your favorite nighttime cold remedy?"...etc etc etc
j
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
>One other thing that came out from investigating the UI... the amount
>of impact AOL can have on Usenet is severely restricted by the 2400
>bps connection.
I did (and suffered) most of my Usenet Damage in my early days on a
Televideo 912 terminal at 1200bps connected to an 11/780... News reading
at 2400bps is not bad.
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815
Software Development Technology c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics/GM Hughes Electronics [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Michael Castle
MITCH...@DELPHI.COM <mitc...@news.delphi.com> wrote:
>Who is to say that the AOL community is really any different than the world
>at large. We put up with the new crop of college freshment hitting the
>internet each fall,
>it shouldn't bge any different here. If we really believe that Usenet is
Actually.. this WILL be different: Freshmen happen every fall; AOL will
only happen once, and at a usually 'low' volume time as well.
--
Mike Castle .-=NEXUS=-. Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
mca...@cs.umr.edu and be right all the time, or not work at all
S08...@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
John F. Woods
H>In article <jtara.101...@crash.cts.com>,
e>Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
r>>In article <rdippold.762479054@happy> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
e>>>In case you haven't been following a few of the appropriate groups,
>>>America Online has been doing final testing of their Usenet access.
t>>Well, now that you've demonstrated your superiority, do you any suggestions
h>>on dealing with the additional traffic?
e>Actually, they should be treated as any other newbie, same as the yearly
y>influx of new freshmen.
>BUT:
c>At least Ron was warning us that we're going to see a MAJOR influx of
o>"that's-not-how-it-works-on-AOL" clueless newbies. We (the current
m>UseNet community) are going to have to go through the process which we
e>see every fall, and have some patience with them.
!> ...
!>As a maintainer of a FAQ, I appreciate the advance warning.
Actually, has anyone spoken with the powers-that-be at AOL to attempt to get
them to actually advertise the existence of FAQs and netiquette and things
like that, unlike every other new system on the net? Or, even better, to
try to make sure they're up-to-date on local copies of FAQs and Emily Postnews
before unleashing the hordes?
This would be an ideal opportunity for AOL to get a net reputation for
excellence in customer service, and to have people worldwide recommend AOL
to friends and relations. Of course, it's also an ideal opportunity for
AOL to cost their current customer base hundreds, if not thousands of dollars
reading and answering flames engendered by a deliberately cultured ignorance,
so I guess we can find out if AOL takes a short-term or long-term view...
Erland Sommarskog
>And that's something to be afraid of. That means cluelessness, trendy
>poseurism, bigotry, authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism,
>lawsuits, closed-mindedness and other traits seen in the Real World. The
>Net could become a lot more suitish and less clued in.
Real world? Sounds like Usenet to me.
--
Erland Sommarskog, som...@enea.se, Stockholm
Not spokesman for ENEA Data AB
Zorak
of impact AOL can have on Usenet is severely restricted by the 2400
bps connection.<<
AOL does have 9600 baud capability...in fact I'm on it now.
Jon Tara
>From: sta...@skyking.oce.orst.edu (John Stanley)
>Subject: Re: Incoming Alert: AOL Usenet Access
>Date: 7 Mar 1994 06:22:41 GMT
I still don't understand why anyone *cares* to make a distinction. To me, and
to most people, "Usenet" is the whole tamale. Trying to label some part of it
Usenet (TM) is snobbery in action, and nothing more or less.
Somebody tell me why this is important? I can understand Kleenex (TM) - it's
a commercial product, and the name has monetary value. Usenet (SM) (snob mark)
has no such value for anyone to "claim" it.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jon Tara|Internet: jt...@crash.cts.com | Cancel once, shame on you.
|CompuServe: 76477,3422 | Cancel twice, shame on me.
Jim Jewett
Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>>In article <jtara.113...@crash.cts.com>,
>>Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>>>Why does it matter? Frankly, I don't think the new users
>>>are going to buy the "big 7 is better" snobbery, anyway.
Actually, they might, if they see only good groups in the
big 7, but they see a plethora of alt.fan.I.cant.spel.spank.die.spank
groups elsewhere.
>I still don't understand why anyone *cares* to make a distinction. To me, and
>to most people, "Usenet" is the whole tamale. Trying to label some part of it
>Usenet (TM) is snobbery in action, and nothing more or less.
Last year, I set up a mailgate for a friend -- his site categorically
refused to carry anything in alt. (They've changed this now, but
that was the case then.) Basically, they were saying that they hadn't
the resources to carry everything, and groups that had passed muster
for the big 7 were more likely to be worthwhile.
> Somebody tell me why this is important? I can understand Kleenex (TM) - it's
>a commercial product, and the name has monetary value. Usenet (SM) (snob mark)
>has no such value for anyone to "claim" it.
It does usually carry better propagation. Lots of alt groups are
around the 25% propagation mark. This isn't helped by the
newgroup/rmgroup wars, or the silly groups, but you can't really
avoid that without some rules. The big 7 have more stringent
rules, so that it will take longer before such problems occur.
And if you think it isn't important, ask the B5 people why they
can't stay in alt. Then ask the zoophiles why their group
can't go there. I don't know that the answers will convince
you that the distinction is important, but they should convince
you that they're important to _some_ people.
-jJ
John Stanley
Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>I still don't understand why anyone *cares* to make a distinction. To me, and
>to most people, "Usenet" is the whole tamale.
And to many people, USENET is the Internet and vice versa. To many
people, tomatoes are a vegetable. To many people, ROM game cartridges
are tapes. To many people, the Maginot Line was uncrossable. The latter
unfounded belief led to the saying "forty million Frenchmen can be
wrong".
>Trying to label some part of it
>Usenet (TM) is snobbery in action, and nothing more or less.
You apparently didn't read what you quoted. How is "not USENET" in any
way worse than "USENET"? How is "USENET" better than "not USENET"?
> Somebody tell me why this is important?
Because there are "rules" for how USENET groups are formed that do not
apply to non-USENET groups.
>I can understand Kleenex (TM) - it's
>a commercial product, and the name has monetary value. Usenet (SM) (snob mark)
>has no such value for anyone to "claim" it.
That's right. But then, if there is no value, how can it be a "snob
mark"? Answer: it isn't. It is important only because it differentiates
how groups are formed. It doesn't differentiate their value, their
desirability, their traffic levels, their contents, or anything else.
Matt Messina
writes:
> In article <rdippold.762953837@happy> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos"
>
> >Matt Messina <mes...@umich.edu> writes:
> >>On a totally unrelated subject, what do you think of this convention?
> >>USENET = The big 7 just as UNIX = That thing that Novell owns
> >>Usenet = Network News Unix = clones of above
>
>
the
> "big 7 is better" snobbery, anyway.
do with snobbery.
--
Matt Messina
mes...@umich.edu
tommyc
>(As far as I know, delphi give new users a "guide to the Internet"-type
>book. The user can find the correct netiquette -- if they can be
>bothered to read the whole thing and take notice of everything.)
Wrong! Unfortunately, Delphi does not give new users even a half clue. If
you are smart enough to investigate the Internet SIG Database, you can
find lots of of stuph, including Zen, Big Dummy, December, Yanoff, etc.
But unlike the AOL introductory screens someone posted (I don't know--
somewhere. Lately.) there is nothing between Usenet and the Newbie but a
disclaimer that Adult Material may be out there so proceed AYOR. For a
fee you can buy a book/manual on how to cope with Delphi and for a fee
you can buy the new book on Delphi/Internet. Otherwise, with Internet as
with the rest of Delphi, you're on your own.
They'd be the first to admit that their user interface isn't ready yet,
and probably the last to agree with many who find their general level of
user assistance to be... deficient and frequently insulting and abusive.
Ymmv, of course. That was my experience and that of some others I've seen
posting. But no, there is no manual or automatic netiquette screens (such
as the ones AOL seems to provide). Too bad.
Bryan Maloney
Why are people getting so hot and bothered over AOL and Genie connecting
to Usenet? Come on, people, it's not like Usenet is a scintillating
example of perfect decorum and brilliance. From what I've seen of
discussion on AOL and Genie, they could do no worse than the general grade
of poster I've seen from other services and domains.
For some reason, everything I've seen as "objections" sounds kind of like
the sort of thing one might have heard 30 years ago if news of people of
"the wrong color" were moving into the neighborhood.
RichSC1953
Dippold) writes:
Oh jeez, I walked into the lounge of your country club with no deoderent and a
Haiwaian shirt. How gauche.
I'd think the net would take it as a challenge, compliment and affirmation of
what they'd been doing, rather than another dang mouth to feed.
Alan Coopersmith
incredibly long expire time, so long dead threads get resurrected by their
users...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Coopersmith Internet: al...@ocf.berkeley.edu
U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility Bitnet: alanc@ucbocf
Taki Kogoma
news.groups:
>Which brings up something else I've noticed about AOL - they seem to have an
>incredibly long expire time, so long dead threads get resurrected by their
>users...
And they don't bother to excerpt properly so those of us with 1 week
*internal* expire times ;-) can understand what they're babbling
about? ;-)
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
kog...@unm.edu | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Oh jeez, I walked into the lounge of your country club with no deoderent and a
>Haiwaian shirt. How gauche.
And you did it, what, two months ago? Resurrecting something that's
so old that everyone else has let it die is also bad manners - they
tend to drop body parts on the furniture.
--
This is either a forgery or a damn clever original!
Ken McCarthy
> Which brings up something else I've noticed about AOL - they seem to have an
> incredibly long expire time, so long dead threads get resurrected by their
> users...
I've looked around AOL and if my recollection is correct they have
no expire time. Post are removed manually at some abitrarily
determined time, usually when the files are filled to bursting. It
can take months and months. These posts are often put in an archive
so they can be read and responded to *forever*.
Ken McCarthy
mar...@netcom.com
F Teltsch
Dippold) writes:
>>One other thing that came out from investigating the UI... the amount
>>of impact AOL can have on Usenet is severely restricted by the 2400
>>bps connection.
Umm, I'm here right now, through AOL, at 9600 bps. Am I doing something wrong?
In fact, AOL has had 9600 bps access in many areas for months, and the number
of access points keeps growing. (I don't know whether you'll take this as good
news, or bad news.)
--Frank Teltsch
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>In article <rdippold.762725505@happy>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos"
>Dippold) writes:
>>>of impact AOL can have on Usenet is severely restricted by the 2400
>>>bps connection.
Yes, but that post is several months old, as well. There were some
9600 access nodes at that time, but not a huge number of them that
seemed to be available.
--
Earth Destroyed by Solar Flare - Film at eleven.
daniel woodard
>9600 access nodes at that time, but not a huge number of them that
>seemed to be available.
14.4kbps
*****************************************************************************
THE BIG, huge meteor headed toward the Earth. Could nothing stop
it? Maybe Bob could. He was suddenly on top of the
meteor--through some kind of space warp or something. "Go, Bob,
go!" yelled one of the generals. "Give me that!" said the big
guy general as he took the microphone away.
"Listen, Bob," he said. "You've got to steer that meteor away from
Earth."
"Yes, but how?" thought Bob. Then he got an idea.
Right next to him there was a steering wheel sticking out of the
meteor.
-By Jack Handey
*****************************************************************************
F Teltsch
(daniel woodard) writes:
>> Why would anyone only support 2400 or 9600 baud? Most people I
know >>have 14.4kbps
Very true. And I expect that, at some point, AOL (through
SprintNet) will support 14.4kbps, especially since the competition,
CompuServe, already supports 14.4kbps and is preparing to move into
28.8kbps. But it hasn't happened yet.
--Frank Teltsch
pza...@news.delphi.com
> Why would anyone only support 2400 or 9600 baud? Most people I know have
>14.4kbps
Perhaps because lots of people still have 2400 and as a commercial
organization, AOL (and Compuserve and others) don't want to loose their
business.
PEter Zavon
Penfield, NY
PZA...@Delphi.com