Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.clues.com!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk (Brian Somers) Newsgroups: demon.ip.support,demon.tech.unix,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Batch FTP and Web Pages Followup-To: demon.ip.support,demon.tech.unix,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 10 Jul 1996 12:57:32 +0100 Organization: Coverform Ltd. Lines: 127 Message-ID: <4s05rc$k9@anorak.coverform.lan> References: <31D4AA3A.BC0@www.play-hookey.com> <4rjrkt$ih@anorak.coverform.lan> <4rphs7$158@avondale.demon.co.uk> <4rr0us$fj@anorak.coverform.lan> <4rtrbh$2s8@avondale.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.coverform.lan X-NNTP-Posting-Host: awfulhak.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] John F Hall (jfhall@avondale.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article <4rr0us$fj@anorak.coverform.lan>, : Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> wrote: : >John F Hall (jfhall@avondale.demon.co.uk) wrote: : >: In article <4rjrkt$ih@anorak.coverform.lan>, : >: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> wrote: : > : >: >Hey ? I'm not talking about dividing anything. : > : >: Hmmm, are you then totally incompetent, not even capable of understanding : >: your own articles? : > : >I must be. Explain this "dividing" please. I am obviously not operating : >at the same competence level as you are. : Message-ID: <4rcr6v$dh@anorak.coverform.lan> : "Let's see, 45,000,000 bits / 65,000 users = 692 *bits* each. : Woooooffff !" : You do know what "division" is??? Thank you - so, the answer to your original "division" question is: No, I don't think I should divide the bandwidth (I don't care if it's one physical line, I'm talking about the total bandwidth - see below) by the number of modems. The number of Demon modems involved is irrelevent. The number of users is the number that I'm concerned with. : >: >Oh give me a break. Haven't you heard of the web ? : > : >: Yes, so what? Haven't *you* heard of the other Internet applications? : > : >So what do you think.... since the internet was publicised, lots of : >non-technical people have access. What are they going to do. Understand : >logging in as "anonymous", asking "archie", using telnet, gopher .... : >I wonder what they use ? I wonder what percentage un-technical there : >are on the internet as compared with technical ? : > : >I *really* hate to bicker, but IMO, "techies" vs "users" is a very : >small number these days. : No one is talking about other users, nor "technies" vs "users". My point here is that non-technical people will only understand a well presented graphical program such as a web browser. Unfortunately, these programs aren't very polite when it comes to conserving bandwidth. I would think that it is therefore obvious that more people use web browsers than things such as ftp, archie etc. : *You* : have chosen to make various assertions. I made no *assertions*. Can you qualify this ? : Do *you* understand what you're : talking about? I can only assume that this statement was written to irritate me. : >Well, the whole point of this discussion is that *I* don't think that : >it's the US. I think it's the demon->US bandwidth. : So you produce totally specious, obviously incorrect arguments. Hardly : the way to convince others. Yeah yeah, qualify this too. : >Right.... so..... if we add the bandwidths of the lines, we have one : >line.... I'm talking virtual. We're all routing through one router : Ah, yes, if you add all the bandwidths together and *pretend* they're : one line, there's one line. Big deal. BTW there's *not* just one : router. My point is that everyone that connects to Demon has a share of the available bandwidth to the states. Assuming that none of our physical connections are wider than any of Demons physical connections to the states, it is irrelevent whether they have 1 or 100 physical lines. : >- at least everyone I know on demon connects to demon-du.demon.co.uk. : Ever heard "when you're in a hole, stop digging" - or are you determined : to show you don't know what you're talking about! No, you're determined to show that I don't know what I'm talking about. : demon-du.demon.co.uk is *not* a router, it's the access computer one : dials into. "demon-du" - demon-dial-up - get it? Rubbish. Of course it's a router. Let's see, "does it route packets?". : demon-du.demon.co.uk is *not* a single machine, it's a name that is : aliased to whichever machine you dial into, of which there are *many*. : It's done so that everyone has a single name they can build into access : scripts if needed. And a fine idea it is too. : demon-du.demon.co.uk is nothing to do with routing to the US. [proof deleted] Yep. It's only job is to pick up packets from the PPP link and squirt them onto the Demon LAN & vice versa. : >: >1994 was when things started downhill. 1995 was bottom. : >: >1996 looks promising. : > : >: It isn't only Demon that grown explosively in the last two years. So : >: has the traffic in the US. Demon has had it's bottlenecks from time to : >: time, but now seems on top of them. However that doesn't mean that : >: there won't be bottlenecks elsewhere. : > : >Ok, I agree with this, there are bottlenecks outside of demon, but I : >think that the whole UK-US thing is almost completely Demons fault. : >I believe something along the lines of 1994 = "internet boom", 1995 : >= "Demon: oh dear, we cannae cope captn". Only now is Demon catching : >up with demand. : You're entitled to your beliefs, even to present them to us. But if you : want others to share them, produce *sensible* arguments, rather than : obvious nonsense. As it is the preponderance of evidence is against : you. As indeed you're entitled to yours. -- Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....