I was thinking of going along to the ITS ResNet Focus group meeting next Wednesday (12.30 in Ramphal 113) to put forward our views on the general state of the ResNet. From what I've heard there are not enough of us represented at these meetings and hence our views are not being argued enough! So I was wondering does anyone fancy joining me, or alternatively are there any specific points you guys would like me to talk about ??
Stick all your ideas on this thread so I can go and kick some ITS ass next week
apparently, next week they're having the guy who actually knows some technical stuff there (this week there were just us students talking to 4 people - one of whom was the ITS receptionist )
quote of the day from this week's meeting:
"I want to fix things. I don't want to carry on blaming this problem on P2P like we blamed things on viruses (*snigger*) since I came here"
And that's honestly what one of the ITS guys said.
to be fair to ITS, there are a LOT of retards {bedpanmaster included} who come to camparse and just plug in their computers having never done a virus scan or made sure they were save to connect.
its like freshers flu, happens every year like clockwork and the virii do cause a big problem to ITS.
having said that,
ITS are still shit and i wouldnt pay £5 a year for the sort of access they provide let alone a week.
yoinkster u're entirely right... b4 ITS took over the ResNet I was told by an ITS staff that they daily received as much as 10-20k virus connections from the ResNet.. Freshers definetly give them a headache every year..
U kno I reckon thats why they should ally with us DC++ users.. We could supply a version of DC++ that while installing also did a virus check and cleaned the computer man I just love my crazy imagination
I would go to this meeting if I lived on campus.. n I didnt have a lecture.. but maybe one day I'll skip my lecture and go just for the sake of arguing with the ITS staff.. n especially if its receptionist type ppl.. they're always fun to confuse with tons of technical terms
Any chance some1 could suggest the idea of some kind of "warning" system.
ie instead of blocking the 17 people that they did, emailing them first saying something along the lines of "calm down stop being such a download whore" and then after 2 or so warning blocking, atleast that way wed have a chance of knowing what level of downloading is exceptable.
altough saying that they probebly just email EVERYONE they suspected of using dc++ and not just tho ones that are using all the bandwith.
All also they've not actually officially said they accept any filesharing. So to start giving warning emails would be indirectly doing that. So dont think they will.. I think they've decided to unofficially turn a blind eye to low bandwidth (external mostly I think) filesharing. This doesnt mean that they've started supporting it tho.. so not sure that suggestion would get very far...
why would it? if the email said don't do it hows that admiting they dont mind?
but if they unofficialy dont mind too much they would only send it to the top offenders, but still in the email say no p2p is allowed etc. just gives u more warning before your net is cut off.
I've just been reading the minutes of the past focus group meetings (none of which I went to) and I noticed that in those for the 2nd November 2005 they've written:
ITS wrote:Issue of filesharing was raised. Re-iterated that internal filesharing was permitted, but that all external filesharing remains prohibited and therefore blocked.
(http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/ ... ember2005/)
err, "internal filesharing permitted??" what's with that then?
Minutes dated after this don't seem to contain any change though this does of course disagree with the firm mention in the AUP.
I shall try to attend the next meeting, this could be interesting.
well thats stupid as 99% of DC traffic is internal protocalls thus internal filesharing ? ITS really just say something and mean something completly different ...nutters
)
