On Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:29:32 EDT Stan Horwitz <[log in to unmask]> said: >Many systems here can now utilize Internet services. What does Bitnet >give us that Internet doesn't? SENDFILE, TELL and things like LISTSERV. >If Temple's Listserv had to be shut down, our listserv lists could >simply be moved to Usenet. That is your claim. As you get to learn usenet, you will see that it does not have only advantages. In particular, it is an intrinsically anarchic medium; any list which requires some form of access control or other is unworkable on usenet. Watch out for Hasan B. Mutlu's regular cross-postings. >How would that benefit Bitnet only sites who cannot access Usenet >directly? You have an inverted view of the situation! If people on BITNET think TEMPLEVM lists are globally useful, they can be easily moved to another LISTSERV host; if you move them to usenet, they can be gatewayed to a LISTSERV list. Since when have there been problems getting information from one network to the other? TEMPLEVM lists which are of purely local interest, however, are unlikely to receive this kind of support. >It seems to me that it would be better to allow those who drop Bitnet to >continue to run their listservers so they can continue to provide Bitnet >only sites with information. Read the previous messages: it is not even technically possible without leading to chaos. There is a certain list of networks whose members can get free licenses, and for now it only includes NJE networks. And if I ever make (on my own) a version that has all the absolutely non-trivial changes to support non-NJE sites or other operating systems, I am going to charge for that version! >Denying Bitnet sites this information could entise some of them to >switch to Internet in order to receive the same information. Nonsense: you have just pointed out yourself that one can be on both BITNET and the Internet and enjoy both forms of communication. I can't see why I would need to drop my BITNET connection just to read news. Eric