OT perhaps? Old vs New Internet (was Re: BBSs & PPP)

From: Tothwolf <tothwolf_at_concentric.net>
Date: Sun Nov 3 16:16:01 2002

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Tothwolf once stated:
>
> > Reluctantly, I have been forced more and more to use the web over more
> > efficient services such as ftp, but I have not been happy with that
> > change.
>
> Also, FTP is no more efficient than HTTP---once the data starts coming
> there is *no* difference in the protocol at this point---it's just a
> straight TCP copy from one system to another and it then comes down to
> how efficient TCP is. Zmodem is probably the *most* efficient in the
> transferring of data, but you need a nice clean 8-bit communications
> channel to gain those benefits; I could *not* use Zmodem reliably while
> dialed into the university for instance (couldn't even use Xmodem
> reliably and instead had to use Kermit, which is probably the *least*
> efficient in transferring data but it works when nothing else can).

Well, by efficient I meant finding files. The current state of most
websites often makes it very difficult to find a particular file -- even
when you know exactly what you are looking for. A well maintained FTP site
on the other hand, is pretty straightforward to navigate.

> I do remember using archie to locate programs available via FTP, and
> even pulling one or two packages off Usenet but nowadays I find most of
> the software on the web (via Google).

Google & friends would be great, but many commercial (and increasing
numbers of independent) websites use robots.txt to block crawlers such as
Google from indexing their servers. This kinda defeats the purpose of
those search engines, and means you still have to find stuff the hard way.
Even if you know what company made something, and find their website, you
still have to navigate the darned thing, and increasing numbers of sites
are transforming their websites into a graphical wasteland.

Case in point: Adaptec. They once had a *great* FTP site, which was well
maintained and easy to navigate. Now, they have disabled 'LIST' on the FTP
server, and instead force people to use their website to find files. The
real problem with this, is that many of the older files are not linked in
any way from their website. As a commercial organization, they have very
little incentive to add links to all of the files for their older
products.

> Also, using FTP is a pain in these days of firewalls and NATing (try,
> just try, FTPing a file between two systems, each behind a firewall.
> Can you say ``futility?'')

I've not had much of a problem with it, and I suspect that has more to do
with how well those firewalls are configured.

> Most of this I can attribute to entrenched interests maintaining the
> status quo, and learning that legislation is a very effective way to
> those ends.

Perhaps...but in the longterm, it tends to backfire. I don't think I need
to bother with any examples, as those are quite abundant :)

> R & D takes a long view on investments, which our current economic
> system does not reward. Heck, today, a long view is considered a year,
> maybe two. Not enough to support basic research.

Exactly. What worries me, is that without the ongoing basic research (and
funding thereof), where is our next major technological breakthrough or
achievement going to come from?

I mean, broadband internet is nice, but I hardly consider that a
technological breakthrough. Besides, right now, would most people even
need (or want) that broadband connection if it were not for the graphical
bloat currently found on the web?

> > Yes, CC seems to be made up of some of the best and brightest minds
> > I've found on the internet (and over the years, I've been all over the
> > darned thing). I really wish I'd found classiccmp years ago, since it
> > seems to be one of the few places where I can often find like minded
> > people that can understand what I happen to be talk^H^H^H^Hranting
> > about at any given moment ;)
>
> Which comes to you via the Internet, which is a local call. Imagine
> if you had to dial long distance to participate? Or wait several days
> for your message to propagate via UUCP/FIDO? Would it still be as
> effective?

It is a local call for most of us in the US, but on the other side of the
pond, that isn't always the case. With FIDO, the small daily charges for
telephone calls would certainly add up, but it is hard to say if they
would be much more than what the average subscriber currently pays for
dialup service. There would indeed be message lag, but that isn't always a
problem. Even email and usenet have message lag, granted it is usually
much shorter.

Increasingly, the internet is becoming more and more accessible to
everyone, but at what costs to the internet? It seems to me that huge
connectivity providers bring people to the internet, but do not even
bother to educate them at all. Honestly, it seems like a majority of the
people who get a "canned" version of the internet seem to think that the
'net exists just for them, and they can do whatever they please with it.
We also have major media companies with a strong bias toward content
control who now own or manage major connectivity providers. To me that
situation looks pretty dim.

-Toth
Received on Sun Nov 03 2002 - 16:16:01 GMT