|
Grex > Coop8 > #32: The Grex's Landlords item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 150 of 269:
| 
May 19 19:10 UTC 1996 |
I never said I thought the boards should be combined, in fact I said I
thought sharing space was a bad idea and said sarcastically that if it
made sense to share space, the same reasoning would be suggested to
combine in other ways.
I agree with greg, I dont think it serves the cybercommunity for grex and
m-net to be linking in any way. Isnt this how m-net and arbornet ended up
merging? By becoming too closely dependent upon each other or something?
..
|
adbarr
|
|
response 151 of 269:
|
May 19 19:20 UTC 1996 |
I do not really understand the real objections to sharing facilities. Is it
technical, practical, political or psychological? Or all of the above?
Certainly, if we want to negative the idea to death, go no further. But
tell me the real reasons. HVCN and Grex have shared. It has not killed
either of us, yet. I am not advocating combining systems, directors, and
budgets. I am advocating saving money for the benefit of the users.
We had much the same debate when the WIN intiative was active. We all
agreed we would keep system identities intact and pure. If anyone felt
threatened they could leave. Is Grex people or computers?
|
scg
|
|
response 152 of 269:
|
May 19 21:15 UTC 1996 |
HVCN politics and Arbornet politics are two different things, from what I've
seen. I'm far more comfortable with HVCN than Arbornet, and wouldnt' be
worried if we ended up sharing space with HVCN.
|
gregc
|
|
response 153 of 269:
|
May 19 22:00 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, go back and read my responses, I *have* told you "the real reasons".
What Grex and HVCN have "shared" is trivial, it's irrelavant to this
arguement.
|
srw
|
|
response 154 of 269:
|
May 20 07:03 UTC 1996 |
greg, you have used the slippery slope argument that we will start to share
some things and then more and more. I say that is nonsense. We will share only
what we agree it makes sense to share, and we will stop there.
Just because sharing A+B+C+D is a really bad idea, doesn't mean we shouldn't
try to share just A if it can be justified on its own merits.
SCG is introducing a different kind of argument altogther, that he objects
to sharing anything with arbornet because of its politics in ways that don't
apply to HVCN because the politics are different. I see the difference, but
I am not sure I agree that we shouldn't try to share something useful with
arbornet. Besides, politics sometimes can change.
|
janc
|
|
response 155 of 269:
|
May 20 13:52 UTC 1996 |
Re #150: No, this is not how m-net and arbornet ended up merging. There was
never a plan for the two systems to share anything. It was supposed to be
a full merger from the beginning, with m-net supplying a working machine and
arbornet supplying a working organization with a 501(c)3 status.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 156 of 269:
|
May 20 15:55 UTC 1996 |
It does make sense for grex and m-net to share resources regardless of the
differences in political philosophy. Those differences are marginal. The
similarities are important:
A) Anyone can dial an Ann Arbor phone number to reach either system
B) Anyone can telnet in to reach either system
C) Once someone reaches either system (s)he can create an anonymous account
D) Moments after creation, that anonymous account can be use for e-mail
There are other similarities, but the ones above are enough that it should
be clear that the systems need each other. Everyone on grex remembers how the
system performance went in the tank when m-net had a disaster which took them
off the air. As long as the users can freely migrate between the two systems,
it makes sense for the two systems to share. A stronger m-net leads directly
to a less over-burdened grex. And visa-versa.
|
remmers
|
|
response 157 of 269:
|
May 20 17:21 UTC 1996 |
I don't follow the logic there. If the one system is useful as a
backup for the other, then that usefulness is enhanced by *more*
independence, not less independence. For instance, if the two
systems share the same physical space or some common hardware, it
makes it more likely that if one system is down, the other one will
be too.
|
robh
|
|
response 158 of 269:
|
May 20 18:13 UTC 1996 |
Very true. That sounds like an excellent argument for the
systems to be kept far apart, at least physically.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 159 of 269:
|
May 20 18:33 UTC 1996 |
In the meantime...anybody check out the snooze commercial space for rent
section on Sunday? I scanned it, and saw several possibilities...granted,
they ranged from $250-$800 per month, but with two rooms, shared
secretarial/reception services, conference room, utilities paid...might be
an option still.
I agree with the view that there is no pre-determined disintegration into
oneness simply by being physically close. I do not imagine two terminals with
one chair in the center...I see more of two separate offices, with locks, and
a single network link running through a 3/8" hole in the wall.
I do admit to the danger of disaster hitting both systems at the same time,
which is less likely if they are physically separate. But that could be
managed technically, I think, save for massive physical disaster.
Is there a space with four suites? Grex, HVCN, ICAN, Mnet...all share rent
and reception (and security guard?) in utility free space but have different
addresses. Maybe a single T1 line to the bldg with a commonly operated router
and each system gets ISDN or something like that (I really don't know the tech
specs).
|
janc
|
|
response 160 of 269:
|
May 20 20:24 UTC 1996 |
I think reception and security guards are completely inappropriate for any
of these systems. We have more useful things to spend money on.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 161 of 269:
|
May 20 23:16 UTC 1996 |
I hope M-net, HVNC and Grex remain separate, independent and
autonomous. The little we'd save on rent from shared space
is simply not going to be worth what we'd risk losing. The
very first time there is a security concern and our staff
starts squinting at the other system's staff. Or someone
from our system ticks off the landlord and everyone is
put in a squeeze. Or the Secret Service makes an unscheduled
visit and doesn't buy our concept of separate computers.
And on and on. In so many ways the other guys problems
will become our problems. We don't need more problems.
As an M-net user I want M-net kept away from Grex politics
and as a Grex user I want Grex kept away from M-net's politics.
Both systems are stronger for not mixing business and policies.
|
steve
|
|
response 162 of 269:
|
May 21 02:50 UTC 1996 |
Yup.
They really should be different entities.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 163 of 269:
|
May 21 04:32 UTC 1996 |
Re 157, I see what you mean that it's a benefit to the users to keep the
systems physically separate and with separate 'net connections so that an
outage on one system is less likely to impact the other system. What I was
thinking when I wrote 156 is that giving both staffs access to the combined
site might reduce the chances that an outage would hit either system. If a
machine needs physical attention and someone from the other staff is on site,
that person might be able to fix the problem (with consultation from a staffer
of the system in distress.)
|
srw
|
|
response 164 of 269:
|
May 21 04:35 UTC 1996 |
Grex cannot afford commercial space on its own. Rick, those figures are
way too high. We could manage if we could split the $250 rent four ways.
I think we should collaborate. The alternate is to become completely dependent
on someone (if we can find someone) to provide us our space. Fortunately,
such people may exist, although the offers are likely to have strings attached.
Well, the system is much more reliable now, maybe we can go back into the
warehouse. No 24 hour access, but at least we won't be sharing with M-net.
Will Ken have us back?
|
jep
|
|
response 165 of 269:
|
May 21 16:47 UTC 1996 |
I'm pretty sure I'm more aware (and have been more involved with)
Arbornet politics than anyone else in this conference. I've been in the
thick of it for the last 5 years, counting pre-merger M-Net. Please note
that's a lot different than saying I like it.
My suggestion re: sharing space and other resources required by both
M-Net and Grex was intended as an exploratory thought, not as a proposal
that Cyberspace Inc. merge with Arbornet. I wouldn't want that to happen,
either. No one here would want it, and no one over there would.
I think there are some nice things that Grex and M-Net could do
together that neither could do separately. If there are such things, and
they're beneficial enough, it would be unwise to not consider them.
Two people had strongly worded arguments against the idea. I'll
briefly address those.
Gregc was opposed because of several "What if's". If you don't want
to trust someone else's future goodwill and acceptance of your goals, why
not draw up a contract stating your terms? Other companies do it all the
time. Including ones who have very bad blood between them.
(Ford/GM/Chrysler,for example.)
Steve Gibbard is concerned about the history of WIN. Can't help you
with that one. WIN was a bad deal. But it was also a complicated deal;
Arbornet's part of it fell apart for a lot of reasons. Over a year later,
I still think Arbornet should have pulled out of it when it did. If we
have to rehash WIN every time we discuss any new cooperative ventures, we
won't get very far. I don't think that's necessary.
|
janc
|
|
response 166 of 269:
|
May 21 17:16 UTC 1996 |
I think what Steve said in #163 is an important dose of realism.
- Grex is going to find it difficult to be able to afford to rent
standard commercial space at flat commercial rates.
- This means we need to cut a deal with someone. Once we had a deal
with Ken Asher. More recently Nick Contaxes was willing to cut us
a special deal. Arbornet made a deal with the New Center. Most likely,
wherever we go we are going to be at least partially dependent on the
charity of some other group or individual. In many cases that person
or group will get some benefits from Grex as well, but no such deals
can be trusted to be stable in the long term.
Complete independence is almost not an option. It's just not the nature of
Grex. The notion of cooperating with other on-line non-profits has to be
evaluated with respect to these facts.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 167 of 269:
|
May 21 21:56 UTC 1996 |
Back to my earlier suggestion...place a "space wanted to rent" ad with the
low amount you can afford but the spartan needs you have. There just may be
someone out there with a space that isn't worth the $ to advertise it, but
they read the ads for potential tenants.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 168 of 269:
|
May 21 22:52 UTC 1996 |
I think an ad should be taken out in the A2 news or whatever the local
papers are, describing grex and asking if anyone has space or ideas for where
grex can live. Just a little blurb in the classifieds...couldnt hurt
|
adbarr
|
|
response 169 of 269:
|
May 22 02:50 UTC 1996 |
It is curious to me that Grex is willing to "share" with a landlord when
part of the relationship is apparently openly hostile, but is not willing
to even consider sharing with an organization that has similar goals.
It is clear where the real power exists here.
|
tsty
|
|
response 170 of 269:
|
May 22 09:33 UTC 1996 |
#161, #162 ... yup again.
When he Christians and Islamicists become the same religion and
Ford and GM become the same car company, then i might consider putting
Grex and teh M-b0x in the same room. Until then, though, it's just
a plain, bad idea.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 171 of 269:
|
May 22 11:35 UTC 1996 |
Merger and sharing/cooperation are two different concepts, I think.
|
gregc
|
|
response 172 of 269:
|
May 22 12:22 UTC 1996 |
Re #169: adbarr
That's complete nonsense Arnold. We're not "sharing" anything with our
landlord. We're *renting* a separate and *private* space in their
building in exchange for money. We don't share our space with them.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 173 of 269:
|
May 23 04:12 UTC 1996 |
Gregc - stick to bytes you understand them well. You are out of your depth
here. Your "private" space has proved, in fact, to be anything but. You
share the access, the structure, the land, and the space. It is not as
simplistic as you make it, either in law or in fact. Please check your
facts before you throw words around, like "nonsense", that you really
don't understand in this context. You have your expertise - it is not
universal, sir.
|
scg
|
|
response 174 of 269:
|
May 23 05:12 UTC 1996 |
Why is Greg wrong in this case? Renting a seperate room is, at least in
theory, veri different from sharing a room. Just as my landlord can't just
walk into my apartment without a good reason, and even if she does have a
reason to be in there she can't start messing with my stuff, Grex's landlords
aren't supposed to be in the Dungeon without a good reason. It is a separate
room, with a lock on the door. Yes, we do have to walk through the basement
of the building to get to it, but that's the laundry room that all the tenants
in the building have access to. It's no different than having to walk through
a hallway to get to a locked apartment or office. Currently the only people
who have keys to the room Grex is in are the landlord and various staffers
who also have root access on Grex. There's a big jump from that to a system
where people could have access to the room who we don't even know. Maybe it's
safe and maybe it's not, but it's certainly not the same thing.
|