rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (10/29/85)
I must strongly protest the discussed removal of the Macintosh related
groups. I use the groups for my WORK which, among other things, involves
looking into the feasiblity of using the Macintosh as an inexpensive
graphics terminal IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT.
There is a growing number people in my organization using the Macintosh
to offload some of our word processing/engineering drawing tasks to lighten
the load on our Unix systems in addition to using them as intelligent/graphics
terminals IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT. A steady flow of information and software
from others doing the same kinds of research is essential to our WORK.
Finding the MacWrite to troff converter and the MacPaint to imagen software
on the group has been helpful to our WORK. It allows us to create documents
with drawings in the Macintosh environment and upload them to be modified and
distributed to others in our UNIX ENVIRONMENT and converted to hardcopy on
our laser printer.
I emphasize the WORK because that is what this network is supposed to be used
for: the dissemination of information for the purpose of increasing one's eff-
ectiveness at WORK. If there is a legal problem with "shareware" then find out
about it and act accordingly. If there is no real problem, then leave the
shareware alone. I have found a few gems come through that more than justify
the existence of the group. Software, by the way, that I use in my WORK.
I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until
it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. Net.micro.mac and Net.
mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so
certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the
Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE.
--
richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego
{ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rechenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/31/85)
> [net.sources.mac is highly relevant to my work, therefore...] > I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until > it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. Net.micro.mac and Net. > mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so > certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the > Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE. Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (11/02/85)
In article <6100@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > . . . > > mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so > > certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the > > Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE. > > Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, > and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are > ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using > the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but > why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry The net works because we cooperate in serving the needs of other sites, Henry, even if they don't precisely match our own. Why should our site pay for the exchange of technical information for hardware we don't have (AT&T, IBM, etc.)? Because we expect in return that other sites will support connectivity for articles about things that we DO have, like VAXen and Macintoshes. It works both ways. So: have you considered using U.S./Canadian mail as an alternative to net.{micro.att,micro.ibm-pc, etc.} yet? :-) It's cheaper than the net, too. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
gig@ritcv.UUCP (Gordon Goodman) (11/04/85)
In article <226@mplvax.UUCP> rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) writes: > >I must strongly protest the discussed removal of the Macintosh related >groups. I use the groups for my WORK which, among other things, involves >looking into the feasiblity of using the Macintosh as an inexpensive >graphics terminal IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT. > >Finding the MacWrite to troff converter and the MacPaint to imagen software >on the group has been helpful to our WORK. It allows us to create documents >with drawings in the Macintosh environment and upload them to be modified and >distributed to others in our UNIX ENVIRONMENT and converted to hardcopy on >our laser printer. > I too use the Mac on a regular basis as my primary interface to our Unix environment and have found many of the postings to the net in the .mac groups enormously helpful. Machines like the Mac are rapidly becoming a part of the larger Unix environment. It is important, for the vitality of the Unix community, not to put on blinders about the significance and impact of readily-available microcomputers as workstations. As I wade through the daily net news, the mac groups are among the very few groups that have real utility. This is a strong vote for the continuation of mac groups in general and .sources.mac in particular. Gordon Goodman School of Computer Science & Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
cmoore@amdimage.UUCP (chris moore) (11/07/85)
In article <6100@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> [net.sources.mac is highly relevant to my work, therefore...] >> I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until >> it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. Net.micro.mac and Net. >> mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so >> certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the >> Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE. > >Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, >and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are >ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using >the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but >why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I missed the beginning of this discussion, but I have to disagree with Henry's comment. Sure, there are a lot of sites not using Macintoshes, (including mine), but there are also a lot of sites not interested in religion, sports, graphics, telecommunications, or dozens of other subjects which are supported by the network. Maybe I've missed something here, but I don't see why the Macintosh group should be singled out when there are a lot of other groups that I don't care about, but I'm paying bills to move them. -- Of course we have backup tapes. Do you want last year or the year before? Chris Moore (408) 749-4692 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!amdimage!cmoore
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (11/07/85)
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology writes: >> [net.sources.mac is highly relevant to my work, therefore...] >> I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until >> it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. .... > > Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, > and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. Mailing floppies suffers from two relatively minor problems (possible physical damage, including magnetic scrambling, and relatively long delays for non-first class mail) and one MAJOR one as compared to electronic distribution: very low connectivity. Or am I supposed to buy 1000 floppies (at $3 minimum each) and get a bulk mailing license? This is the exact reason electronic mail and computer bulletin boards are popular means for distributing personal- computer public domain software. >You are > ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using > the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but > why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? Oh, phoo. NO sites are using net.(religion, movies, etc.) in their Unix-related work. Why pick on a group that IS being used? -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan Working is not a synonym for Quality.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/12/85)
> ... Sure, there are a lot of sites not using > Macintoshes, (including mine), but there are also a lot of sites > not interested in religion, sports, graphics, telecommunications, or > dozens of other subjects which are supported by the network. Maybe > I've missed something here, but I don't see why the Macintosh group > should be singled out when there are a lot of other groups that > I don't care about, but I'm paying bills to move them. Because net.sources.mac is ten times the volume (hence cost) of any of those other groups, if you ignore the "debate" groups that we don't get any more anyway. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/12/85)
> Mailing floppies suffers from ... > one MAJOR [problem] as compared to electronic distribution: very > low connectivity. Or am I supposed to buy 1000 floppies (at $3 minimum each) > and get a bulk mailing license? This is the exact reason electronic mail > and computer bulletin boards are popular means for distributing personal- > computer public domain software. Provided, of course, that you aren't paying for them. 1000 floppies at $3 each is about three months of our phone bills. Given an organized mailing scheme, the floppies could be swapped around for years. No, I am not actually seriously suggesting this as an alternative to Usenet, just pointing out that Usenet is a very expensive way to swap Macintosh software. When was the last time you contributed money to your nearest backbone site's phone bills? If the answer is "never", then maybe you should start pricing floppies just in case. > ...NO sites are using net.(religion, movies, etc.) in their > Unix-related work. Why pick on a group that IS being used? Because I've already done some heavy picking on the other groups you mention. Specifically, we don't get them any more. Incidentally, have you noticed just what fraction of net.sources.mac is actually useful material? It's not too high, by the looks of it. High time net.sources.mac was moderated. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry