JANET and cam.ac.uk cutting Usenet News feed from July
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Mail and trash
Next: Mac Pro problem
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 Apr 2010 17:43 Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: > > >> For many years the University has run a Usenet News service, > >> supporting access to worldwide newsgroups and also to newsgroups local > >> to the Cambridge area or to the University. The use of newsgroups has > >> been dwindling over the last few years, and in July JANET is > >> discontinuing its Usenet News feed, from which the Cambridge > >> University server is supplied. > And at least one "High-Tech" university cut off the Usenet access > around 10 YEARS ago. Demand for the news-groups was reducing, and the > bandwidth could be better utilised. The bandwidth use is trivial; such decisions are made by management, based on management rationalizations such as the claim you make. No-one has ever say down to work out what benefit comes from a Usenet feed in a fashion that allows it to be compared to the benefit from other means of accessing on-line society. Therefore, any such claim is baseless opinion - a rationalization for a decision made on the basis of (typically) `Usenet is `old fashioned'[1], I don't use it, it's a pain to look after, demand is falling, I know, we'll say we can use the resources more effectively elsewhere and ignore the whines from the students, who cares about them?' But why am I bothering replying to a troll? Rowland. [1] A meaningless pejoration used when the derider has no facts on which to base his opinion. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Dr Geoff Hone on 13 Apr 2010 05:07 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:43:25 +0100, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> For many years the University has run a Usenet News service, >> >> supporting access to worldwide newsgroups and also to newsgroups local >> >> to the Cambridge area or to the University. The use of newsgroups has >> >> been dwindling over the last few years, and in July JANET is >> >> discontinuing its Usenet News feed, from which the Cambridge >> >> University server is supplied. >> And at least one "High-Tech" university cut off the Usenet access >> around 10 YEARS ago. Demand for the news-groups was reducing, and the >> bandwidth could be better utilised. > >The bandwidth use is trivial; such decisions are made by management, >based on management rationalizations such as the claim you make. No claim, Rowland! You have no idea of the system topology involved. This involved a multi-stage spur from a Government establishment, which had the connection to JANET. At the end of this, download speeds could, and frequently did, drop into double figures (bits/sec), so bandwidth was highly critical (particularly if one was shifting serious stuff across the Atlantic). > >No-one has ever say down to work out what benefit comes from a Usenet >feed in a fashion that allows it to be compared to the benefit from >other means of accessing on-line society. True. But the corollary is that it is impossible to say that there is any benefit whatsoever from a Usenet feed. Unfortunately, many individual newsgroups seem to get most of their postings from spammers of one sort or another. > >Therefore, any such claim is baseless opinion - <snip> The facts are mine, the baseless opinion is yours.
From: James Jolley on 13 Apr 2010 05:17 On 2010-04-13 10:07:16 +0100, gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk (Dr Geoff Hone) said: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:43:25 +0100, > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > >> Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> For many years the University has run a Usenet News service, >>>>> supporting access to worldwide newsgroups and also to newsgroups local >>>>> to the Cambridge area or to the University. The use of newsgroups has >>>>> been dwindling over the last few years, and in July JANET is >>>>> discontinuing its Usenet News feed, from which the Cambridge >>>>> University server is supplied. >>> And at least one "High-Tech" university cut off the Usenet access >>> around 10 YEARS ago. Demand for the news-groups was reducing, and the >>> bandwidth could be better utilised. >> >> The bandwidth use is trivial; such decisions are made by management, >> based on management rationalizations such as the claim you make. > No claim, Rowland! You have no idea of the system topology involved. > This involved a multi-stage spur from a Government establishment, > which had the connection to JANET. At the end of this, download > speeds could, and frequently did, drop into double figures (bits/sec), > so bandwidth was highly critical (particularly if one was shifting > serious stuff across the Atlantic). >> >> No-one has ever say down to work out what benefit comes from a Usenet >> feed in a fashion that allows it to be compared to the benefit from >> other means of accessing on-line society. > True. But the corollary is that it is impossible to say that there is > any benefit whatsoever from a Usenet feed. Unfortunately, many > individual newsgroups seem to get most of their postings from spammers > of one sort or another. >> >> Therefore, any such claim is baseless opinion - > <snip> > The facts are mine, the baseless opinion is yours. Well reasoned answer to one of Rowland's hissy fits. Just what you should expect though, he's ill, we all must remember this. Rowland, there wasn't any need to be so hostile either. I can understand the reasons why. Most students don't give a toss about usenet. they want Twitter, Facebook, web forums and so on. It's life. Why do you think the Berlin lot only charge a tenner a year? Because it's not worth paying more for text groups and I bet even then the users don't always renew. As I said, shame really but what i'd expect from Trolly Rowly. Best -James-
From: Jim on 13 Apr 2010 05:39 On 2010-04-10, Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > Having said that, I wonder what the actual figures are. I've got a > recent email from news.individual.net so I might try asking them and see > if I get a reply. And I did. Roughly - very roughly - they receive about 1.8-2.5GB a day. This includes duplicates from multiple feeds, plus the occasional accidental binary. They've also seen these numbers drop over the last few years. Weeding out the duplicates I _think_ they see something in the region of half-a-Gig a day inbound. Somewhat less than I was expecting, to be honest. Even allowing for a year's retention (no idea what their retention actually is) the space requirements are well within off-the-shelf storage, although you'd also need redundency on that storage. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash.
From: Peter Ceresole on 13 Apr 2010 06:09
James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > Why do you think the Berlin lot only charge a tenner a year? They've said that they would rather not charge at all, and that the �10 is simply to discourage abusers and bandwidth wasters. It's nothing about recovering costs- which I suspect it doesn't. -- Peter |