[Air-l] networks

[Christian Nelson]

Steve Jones wrote:

> At 10:07 AM -0400 9/18/01, Christian Nelson wrote:
> >Steve Jones wrote:
> >
> >>  At the risk of taking this somewhat off-topic, I'd wonder whether operating
> >>  in this fashion would, in fact, make an organization more vulnerable to
> >>  discovery. The notion of distribution via Internetworking, to my knowledge,
> >>  involves concepts like store-and-forward, copies of information
> >>shared at all
> >>  nodes, etc.
> >
> >Certainly, my notion of "distributed network," as applied to an organization's
> >personnel, didn't presume what was just described. But it seems like people do
> >use the term "distributed network," at times, to refer just to networked
> >computers which are simply interconnected in such a way that there is no
> >centralized site of control--i.e., a network that can't go down simply because
> >one site goes down. And it seems that this is, or has often been
> >claimed to be,
> >the raison d'etre of the Internet (or at least its predecessor, Arpanet).
> >Perhaps the meaning of the term "distributed network" has evolved, or perhaps
> >the term has just developed more than one sense.
>
> Perhaps we can separate out two things from this. One is the notion
> of a network as a means of transmission, of moving information from
> one place to another. That notion certainly allows for the use of
> "distributed network" in terms above. If one part of the network goes
> down the rest of the network can communicate. But we can also use the
> notion of a network as a means of storage and retrieval. In those
> terms, if a part of the network goes down, the other parts would have
> to have "mirrors" of content. If nothing else it's an interesting way
> to think, again, about the differences between "transmission" and
> "ritual" views of communication. If the network is considered one of
> transmission, distributed networking makes sense as a means of
> ensuring communication is maintained if parts of the network are
> vulnerable. But if the network is considered one of information
> sharing, memory, etc., a loss of a part of the network is a loss to
> the whole network unless each part is "backed up" at every other part.

Good point re: the views of communication.

> >While this is tongue-in-cheek it does point to a problem with the potential
> >trend of organizational distribution of personnel--more and more folks, freed
> >from geographical constraint, will head toward the most scenic areas of the
> >world and despoil them by overrunning them.
>
> Although I don't discount that possibility and would be dismayed by
> its realization, I'd point out that it seems like most scenic areas
> of the world have been despoiled and overrun by the organized
> distribution of personnel for purposes of recreation.

Good point. Many have been so despoiled, but not all, and that's all I have to say
about that, lest my favorite unspoiled places become the next popular place to
trample. I should note that the difference between tourism and the type of
population distribution I'm talking about is that it may not despoil so much as
make the beautiful inaccessible due to the privization of right-of-ways, the
development of former camp grounds, etc.

--Christian Nelson