Baslinux mailing list

["Anthony Albert" <albert AT umpi.maine.edu>]

On 11 Jan 2007 at 14:27, Lee Forrest wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:00:44AM -0500, Anthony Albert wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2007 at 15:52, Lee Forrest wrote:
>>
[SNIP]

>> >It would be easy to write simple servers and clients using
>> >bash and netcat if you limited the files they sent/received to
>> >plain language text, binary, or basic HTML.
>>
>> HTML is text, it just gets interpreted by your web browser
>> before you see it.
>
>It's more than that, usually. HTML often contains (hyper)links
>to image files and other HTML documents, often on other servers.
>Hyper Text Transer Protocol. It's not plain language text in any
>case.

I think you may be confusing HTML and HTTP.  The first is a mark-up 
language, for annotating plain text documents, making text notes on how 
to display the document.  The latter (HTTP) is a way to transfer files 
between computers, often including HTML files, but also other text and 
binary files.   While it's true that HTML is not English, it is, for 
most computer purposes, "plain text".

>> >By basic HTML, I mean that what you see on the page is exactly
>> >what you get when you print it, although it may take several
>> >paper pages to do so.
>> >
>> >In The Beginning :-), back when scientists and academics ran
>> >the internet; before the merchants took over, it provided the
>> >virtual equivalents of these basic services, using nothing but
>> >basic HTML and plain language text and binary files, on very
>> >slow connections:
>>
>> I believe that the "slow connection" was more of a limiting
>> factor than anything "the merchants" have done since.
>
>> By supplying faster and faster connections, the amount of use
>> by the same number of people increases to fill the availble
>> pipe - I've seen this again and again in my workplace. Order
>> more bandwidth, and usage again goes up to about the 80% usage
>> level within a few months.
>
>Those last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. I can't
>figure out what you are trying to say.
>
>But "slow" connections are only limitations if you are trying to
>turn the network into a virtual shopping mall and a substitute
>for the boob tube and sound system. A playground for people
>seeking mindless entertainment and a place for merchantile
>websites stoked to the gills with eye and ear candy trying
>to make themselves appear different and superior to their
>competitors, which they are not.
>
>All of the functions I listed can work just fine with "slow"
>connections:
>
>Post Office  SMTP/POP
>Newstand HTTP/FTP
>Magazine Stand HTTP/FTP
>Library HTTP/FTP
>University NNTP/FTP/HTTP/SMTP/POP/IRC
>Public and Private Forums NNTP/IRC
>Telephone IRC  (private channel)
>Bulletin Boards NNTP/HTTP/FTP
>Art Galleries: HTTP/FTP

I'll rephrase...

Back in the day, when networking started, slow connections were the 
rule.  Protocols were developed (as you list above) which didn't stress 
speed, but rather reliable delivery.

As greater numbers of people "discovered" the Internet, they thought of 
new things to do with it.  Text-only changed to include a few pictures, 
then audio and video files, and now telephony and other services.

This increased the usage of the slow speed transports, until they were 
so slow that they were replaced with faster ones.  Some applications 
also place a premium on speed of delivery, demanding immediate delivery 
of packets. [ New technologies are also a factor here - i.e. 2400baud 
modems replaced 300 baud modems, and were replaced in turn. ]  
Expectations also increased - I have spoken with people wondering 'why 
isn't my email delivered NOW, instead of five minutes from now'.

As speed has increased, so too has usage, to match the speed increase.

I now read email; browse WWW sites for research, work, and pleasure; 
read news, and sometimes listen to streaming audio.  All of this 
demands more than a "slow" connection.  Only email was around from the 
earliest days of networking - all the others are much more recent 
innovations.

>> [SNIP]
>>
>> >Throw in a DNS server and an LDAP server (web directory:
>> >search engines suck) and you're there. A new-old internet.
>> >Make each box a router (simple enough to restrict it's use to
>> >members) and the new internet is complete.
>> >
>> >That LDAP server would also have links to external web sites
>> >and ftp sites and mail servers, etc, that were accessible with
>> >tiny linux. People would add any such sites they found.
>>
>> I'm not sure that LDAP can do the sorts of things you want
>> here; it tends to be focused on hierarchical structures. I
>> think, rather, you're looking for something more along the
>> lines of a wiki...
>
>An on-line encyclopedia is a good idea, but that's not what I'm
>talking about.
>
>I'm looking for a net directory, something my client can connect
>to to find the address of the org or individual I'm looking for.
>Not the information, but where to find it. DNS/Seach Engine
>combined. A hierarchical structure is perfect.
>
>Something along the lines of the Dewey Decimal System would
>work. If I want to find information on pruning roses, then I'd
>enter a search string in my client which would would access te
>directoryserver and return the addresses and _brief_ descriptions
>of the sites:
>
>/science/botany/agriculture//ornamental/flowering/shrubs/roses/cultivation/
>/pruning/
>
>None of the search engine nonsense where you get a return on some
>stray sentence tucked in a porno page to make it appear in an
>unrelated search. Or a page with a poem that includes the phrase
>"grows like a rose" shows up in a search for information about
>cultivating roses.
>
>A website/page, for example, would register with a description
>that would give it a listing in one or more categories. If it
>wasn't about pruning domestic roses it would not appear as a
>listing in that category.
>
>The 'white pages' would just be listings of the addresses of people
>and orgs, by name, probably alphabetically.

Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia.  A 'wiki' is a software package 
that helps people encapsulate and organize knowledge, including 
categorizing and indexing.

There are now many more wikis other than Wikipedia, with many being 
used for purposes other that the encyclopedic storage of knowledge.  A 
wiki can be hierarchical, and also at the same time categorical.  For 
example, one can have catagories in wikis. When a document is submitted 
for indexing, one can select what catagories it falls into, and one can 
then later go to the catgory page and see that the document can be 
found via that category.  Wikis are great knowledge organizers for 
organizations because of this, and the network you suggest would, to 
me, be an "organization".

The Dewey Decimal System and Library of Congress systems work 
similarly.  Someone who is doing the inventory work picks a category a 
work falls into, then assigns a number to the work.  One can then 
browse by category, or use the reference indexes to search by title, 
author, etc.

The problem with that process is that some human has to make the 
decision on what category a work falls into.  And what if works are 
relevant to multiple categories?  What if new categories are added?  
And what if works are being added at the rate of dozens per second? And 
who picks the categories in the first place?

Search engines are the best attempt so far to handle the billions of 
web pages out there.   They're not perfect, no, but careful writing of 
your search request can often limit the number of results, and the best 
engines do attempt to bring the most relevant pages to the top of the 
results list.

Searching Google for 'roses' yields 72,900,000 results.  
Using 'rose cultivation' yields 1,110,000.  (requires both words)
Using ' "rose cultivation" '  (note double quotes around the phrase) 
yields 10,300
Using ' "rose cultivation" Turkey ' ( phrase and additional word ) 
yields just 363, an easily managable number.
Using the "Advanced Search" features can narrow it even further.

One reason that Wikipedia is so popular is that it is encyclopedic and 
categorical.  One can search Wikipedia on a topic, find just a handful 
of relevant pages, then follow the included links at the bottom for 
further reference.  And because Wikipedia is human-edited, it is much 
more relevant than a search engine can be.

Yahoo and Google both have "Directory" services, too, in which people 
can categorize their knowledge.  For example: "Organic Food" is under 
Society > Issues > Environment > Food and Drink > Organic Food

http://www.google.com/dirhp
http://dir.yahoo.com/

http://www.whitepages.com  provides a fairly focused search on people 
and addresses.   http://www.yellowpages.com for businesses.  Searching 
for my first and last name, without a location except "United States" 
gives only 44 listings, for example.

Hope this helps clarify,
Anthony Albert
===========================================================
Anthony J. Albert                     albert AT umpi.maine.edu
Systems and Software Support Specialist          Postmaster
Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle
 "For, you see, so many out-of-the-way things had happened
 lately, that Alice had begun to think that very few
 things indeed were really impossible."-Alice in Wonderland