I logged onto mnet and couldnt believe what I saw...
m-net is offering four months of membership for the price
of three.  But the catch is that you have to have NEVEr (ever
in history) been a member or patron of arbornet.  This
tells me that they are not interested in getting the old
members back.

If they are going to offer some kind of special
deal on memberships, that is fine, maybe even a good
idea cosidering all the recent problems. But to exclude
all former members from being able to getthis deal seems
patently unfair.  

But this is what they have in mind I guess.

26 responses total.

Don't know what who had in mind, but with the records being kept as they
are I'm not sure anyone will know if someone was previously a member/patron.
(I thought the message in the motd excluded *current* patrons, but I didn't
read it very carefully.)

Slaps in the face like that are one reason I'm not likely to ever
send Arbornet another dollar.  18 months and counting....

heh - what's got you fried my friend? that mechanism is part and parcel of
hundreds of *successful* companies in their search for 'new customers.'
  
from the auto companies and banks and grocery stores to lil' ol Arbornet, 
the device is the same ... 'low loss leader.'
  
i think it's a good idea even if *i* can't get in on it ... can you?

you are correct, t.  however, when i read that the first thing i thought of
was  - it will take newbies longer to figure out the mess that arbornet is
in.

Kinda reminds me of kite.

yes, to a large extent it does.

whats up with mnet now, you cant log on anymore if you dont pay
is that it??  I log in and all i get is "sorry, this line for paying
members.....how do us NON paying members get on....im not paying them
a cent until they straighten mnet out...nuff said

   Candi, there are 21 ports available to telneters who aren't
members and 21 for those who are.  Keep trying and you will
get in.

steve:
        According to at least one posting over there, they've reallocated
        telnet-ports and modems per discussion months ago, and (somehow)
        the patrons are trunking down to the Guest and Member access
        automagically.

        Net result: The guests are getting squeezed out.. Perhaps it's a
        bug or a boo-boo.. <shrug>

        Too, I've noted that since Craig made his resignation, the
        cheerleaders have redoubling their efforts to praise him.. (Not
        sure what THAT implies, but it IS amusing ;-)

        It may (or may not) be having a side effect: almost none of the
        older, stable personalities/persona's seem to logging in any
        more.. I've not seen more than 1 or 2 patron-type users online
        this week (at the same time): mostly youngsters and newbies.

It seems odd they would try to keep the "guest/patron" paradigm on
telnet lines.  Especially when there's no easy way for guests to *get* a
guest line...  Very odd.  At the least, it sounds like they need a
smarter telnet.

I don't know what you are doing at mnet but it is not worth the trouble
anymore. I hope you can figure all this out sometime soon. 

re: 11..

        Basically, I call both systems - both have confs and people I
        enjoy.. Or.. Perhaps I should I say they HAD people/confs..?

        Nowadays, I see more ID's here than there.. Each system has a
        distinct flavor/feel. Unfortunately, the MNet system has a scent
        of death (if not decomposition). Too bad, too.. I used to like
        that system, but it's just dying..

yep, it seems to really be going down hill.  Ill keep trying to get on
steve...but i frustrates me when it disconnects me over and over.
Some way to get guests and new members on the system eh??  Oh, come and
join arbornet, and you will get disconnected the minuite you try to get
on our line.....sheesh.

I just got bounced off twice, with only 22 people on pty's.  This 
means that there is AT MOST one patron/member on a patron/member pty.

Smooth move.  NOT.

...And I just got bounced off, too.    I'm rather pissed at
how they're manipulating access.

try the dialins again.. the results you were experiencing came from
altering the primary adn secondary guest dialins. dumb move, since
reverted. the historic two phne numbers are now returned to 
the top of the dialin queue.
  
an note to us (?!) - changing the historically memorable *first* 
dialin line (for us, 761-3000) is a VeryBadMove, imo. 
  
you can see the results here as the m-b0x tried it that way.
  
also, mdw, can't there be a telnet port## assigned to different ptys?
 
if so, adn i don't see why not, the allocation of ptys to guest, email,
patron, finger, www, etc., ought to be a solution.

I believe the whole notion of reserving some lines for patrons makes
no sense over a network.  I'm very glad we managed to get away from this on
grex.

Having said that; technically speaking, reserving some pty's for 
patrons is *possible* but not at all simple.  Some kludgy methods
(with various undesirable technical properties) would be to use
different port #'s, or different IP addresses.
Another option would be to put logic in telnetd to somehow
allow patrons to request a patron port (instead of waiting),
but that requires source to telnetd & someone technically
sophisicated at m-net.  The "logical" place to have recognize
patron vs. guest vs. member access is login - one might (for
instance) create lots of extra ptys', then put logic in login
such that if there are "too many guests", the extra guests
are put into some sort of "waiting zone" *after* authenticating
(as opposed to what we do on grex; making people wait *before*
authenticating).

thank you ... hope someone else reads that

Noted.

Marcus, I am curious why you consider it silly to use the member/patron
paradigm over a network/telnet access.  Obviously there are technical
differences in the connection, but isn't the bottom line that we only
have so many modems and bandwidth for so many net connections?  Doesn't
it make sense to reserve some net connections for patrons -- just as
some modems are reserved?

Why is it necessary to reserve anything until we start having a problem with
people not being able to connect because all of the net connections are in
use?  Also, I take issue with the use of the word "some" in this context; the
plan is to reserve *half* of the incoming telnet ports for members and
patrons.  If you will recall, the manner in which this was implemented the
last time resulted in members/patrons being dropped onto the only ports that
guests could access, leaving guests with no place to go, and most (if not all)
of the member/patron ports unused.  Seems to me that you are trying to correct
a problem that doesn't exist, creating *new* problems in the process, earning
the wrath of a lot of guests who perceive this as an attempt to force them
into paying if they want reliable access.  Before you rush, willy-nilly, to
re-structure access, would you answer for me one question?  How many members
or patrons have complained that they have not been able to log into an M-net
telnet port because the lines were full up?

As a former M-Net patron and current M-Net guest, the only time I can
remember not getting a tty at my whim was during the test.

Gosh, you know, that's the only time *I* can remember not getting a telnet
port, too (assuming you are talking about the telnet re-allocation disaster
of a couple of months ago).

There are two ways to think of giving money to an organization
        #1 you support what they are doing
        #2 you support what you are doing
In the former model, you would expect that others would benefit by your
generosity.  In the latter model, you would generally be opposed to
anything that dilutes the value of your contribution to you.  The former
model promotes altruism, the latter model promotes selfishness.  That is
not to say it's all black & white.  The difference can be subtle, & in
any event, many people won't notice either way.  But trends can be
powerful influences in the long run, and I think this is one of the
things that is pushing grex & m-net in different directions.

As to whether I would rush in, willy-nilly, to re-structure access, the
answer is of course not.  I am quite sure the new center folks and
arbornet's board would be most displeased if I broke into the new center
& proceeded to "restructure" m-net.  Nevertheless, I've always had my
reservations regarding the patron line' paradigm, even when I was
involved with m-net.  Now I know, having had a chance to participate in
an experiment to do things differently, that it's just not a necessary
paradigm for public access computing.  I believe, in the long run, as
network access speeds increase & prices drop, that it will become
impossible to support a system based on a scarcity of telnet ports.
Therefore, in the long run, I believe m-net will have to make *some*
changes.  I know what changes I would make in m-net, but those aren't my
changes to make.  It is up to m-net to decide what changes it wants to
make in itself, and to live with the consequences.

Vive' la difference.

as long as the resource being desired is reasonably available to
the supporters then the guests/non-supporters are quite welcome.
  
not a single bit of a problem with that. i support that structure.
  
when, however, the resource avaialability decreases to the point that
the supporters canNOT obtain what they perceive as 'reasonable availibility,'
the structure *will* change. extreme selfishness as well as extreme
altruism .... are both 'extreme.'
 
grex may face something similar ... we have, and we increased the
number of dialin lines, as well as pty ports (although the pty ports
were not as 'extremely limited' as the dialins, i think.
  
if you support what 'they' are doing you permit it.
if you don't support what 'they' are doing, you find ways to limit it.
if you support what 'you' are doing, you keep doing it.
if you don't support what 'you'are doing, you stop doing it.
  
somewhere in the center section grants the maximum useablility.

Thanks, Marcus, for clearing up my confusion.  I now understand that
you are against "patron connections" regardless of whether those are
"lines" or "ptys" (I thought you were objecting to the latter but not
the former).

Charles, sorry I didn't respond sooner but I hadn't visited this
home-away-from-home in some time.  I used the word "some" because I
wished to pursue a philosophical angle rather than debate a particular
implementation thereof.

Personally I think that reserving half (32) lines for patrons/members
is too much.  I have heard of complaints from paying supporters who
were unable to access an open pty.  I don't think it is unreasonable
to reserve "some" ports for paying supporters and off the top of my
head would guess that 16 is reasonable (and the "first-come-first-
served too bad for the guests" implementation is NOT an option
currently under consideration (see item 132(?) in M-Net's sysop cf).

        None of it will matter shortly, but when the telnetting guests
        outweigh the paying patrons/members at 85% vs 2%, you are trying
        to suggest that arbornet patron/members support the rest of the 
        world and THAT is patent hogwash.

        Ideas abounded for weeks; some "regulars" got nasty and the ideas
        were dropped. Even Grexian funding ideas are seemingly ignored.

        <shrug> Just die gracefully.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss