On Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:25:15 +0200 Eric Thomas said:
>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.
Internet services such as FTP and TALK are available tell fill this gap and
our MAIL software can dispatch files via Internet. As you say below,
Listserv can be utilized via gateways from Internet so even though I like
listserv a lot, its services are also available to Internet only sites.
>>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.
It is anarchic, but then so much in life is and we deal with it. According
to the fellow who runs our Usenet server, readnews is being reorganized or
will be soon. Perhaps some of the anarchy will be removed. I do agree that
one of the nicest features of listserv for list owners is its wide range of
control features that other facilities do not have. My experience is that
listserv is a very tightly run and implemented system and this weighs heavily
in its favor.
>>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.
True, other Listserv postmasters could host Temple's lists if they wanted
to. This would be fine with me and my Help-Net list, however, a lot of folks
tend to have the perception that they have more control over their stuff when
its on the same computer they use. I don't know if this is an important
issue or not, but its something for those who are thinking about going off
Bitnet to consider.
>>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.
Far be it from me to argue with you regarding the technical complications
regarding running Listserv from an Internet only system.
We are living in a wonderous time. The technology to disseminate information
is very impressive and its improving rapidly. This discussion regarding the
benefits of Internet vs. Bitnet services will no doubt become more formal in
the near future. Only time will tell how this issue works itself out. My
humble opinion is that eventually, Bitnet will become another Internet domain
and that it will drop the RSCS protocol entirely in favor of whatever new
Internet's or some other more modern protocol. With the United States
putting much emphasis on a national data network, and other countries too,
change in this area will probably be upon us faster than we realize and I
certainly intend to follow this issue very closely.
Stan Horwitz Internet: STAN @ VM.TEMPLE.EDU Bitnet: STAN @ TEMPLEVM
Temple University's Sr. Mainframe Consultant; Manager of the Help-Net
and Suggest lists; Listserv Postmaster
Standard disclaimers apply. One of these days I will make this sig file
look much nicer.
|
