peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/23/85)
> In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially > >since it's now #1 in volume... > > net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the > volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get > rid of it. You know, if net.sources.mac contained sources it'd sure be less likely to generate this sort of reaction. I think I've seen a total of one peice of source code in it. Fine, binhex up the resources fork, but if you're going to post to a sources group, post sources. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (10/28/85)
<Note to net.micro.mac and net.sources.mac readers: this is a reply to a message that appeared in net.news.group. I'm sorry about posting a non- source article to a sources newsgroup, but considering that net.bizarre was deleted without warning (even if it was mostly trash) . . . > Phil Ngai writes: >In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially >>since it's now #1 in volume... > >I would second that. The shareware postings are of course irritating >but even the non-commercial stuff bothers me. The way I see it, >there's a small group of mac users who have discovered this "free" way >of distributing software, namely USENET. It reminds me of the >proposals to form net.peace on the basis that USENET was a good way >for them to keep in touch. The common problem that I have with this is >that both these interests have nothing to do with the nature of the >network or its intended use, namely to support unix users. If the >volume were low net.sources.mac would be much more acceptable than >net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the >volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get >rid of it. > >Anyone else agree? No -- I don't agree. Shareware postings by people who stand to gain from them financially (the author(s) of the program or even its user(s) in the case of a "you get $X from registrations of copies with your serial number"-type deal) shouldn't be allowed. But leave the rest of net.sources.mac alone!!! If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly 'support unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of the mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion. None of them has anywhere near the utility of net.sources.mac. For that matter, you can probably also get rid of various non-unix newsgroups such as net.micro.pc, net.auto, net.cooks, and net.consumers while you're at it. Since there won't be any need for anything other than net.sources.* and net.unix.*, you'll have no reason not to go ahead and delete net.news.group. Now there's an idea!! Delete net.news.group. All the discussions could be held in net.bizarre (which seems like a much more appropriate place :-). -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edu
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/29/85)
> If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly 'support > unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of the > mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion... That is exactly what is being done, and that is the context in which the desirability of net.sources.mac was originally raised. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (10/30/85)
I hope that if Mr. Spencer's selfish desire to cancel net.sources.mac
actually gains momentum, the hundreds of sites who do actively use it can
cooperate to continue the distribution of it. Net.micro.mac is one of the
most successful and useful newsgroups on the Usenet.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (10/30/85)
In article <6090@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly support >> unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of >> the mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion... > >That is exactly what is being done, and that is the context in which the >desirability of net.sources.mac was originally raised. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Mr Spencer, I'm sure you have the best interests of the net at heart but I must assert that net.sources.mac is used by a number of people at my organ- ization and many others at other sites that I have been communicating with regularly over the past year for legitimate UNIX related work. We are inves- tigating the use of the Macintosh as a productivity tool in the UNIX environ- ment. This group directly supports the WORK efforts of many UNIX users. If you have not as yet gotten a large volume of response to the discussion of killing the group it is because most users of the net probably don't monitor the ad- ministrative groups and don't realize that a group is on the way out until it happens. I stumbled on the fact myself. I plan, however, to take a more serious interest in the way the net is run in the future. It seems that the net has grown out of its adolescence into a more mature state that will need the support and active interest of its users if it is to be usefull in the unix work place. There must be a way to govern the creation and especially the deletion of newsgroups that better serves the unix community that depends on the net for vital information. direction -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (11/01/85)
In article <1753@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >I hope that if Mr. Spencer's selfish desire to cancel net.sources.mac ... Nothing selfish about it. Mr. Spencer's at one of Ontario's financially strapped universities and he (and the powers that be) find it hard to justify paying so much in long distance charges for so much repetitive and sometimes useless junk. Now if you would like to prove yourself un-selfish, you should offer to pay for his long distance costs. Very few people on the net (myself included) pay for the privilege, or do anything to help maintain the net. I look at it as a simple case of "put up or shut up". If you want to see net.sources.mac, you pay for it, because *someone* has to. John
david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor) (11/01/85)
Expires:
I agree with previous poster to net.sources.mac that it is a highly useful
group and should be allowed to survive. The vast majority of material
coming over the wires is useful for one of the main reasons for the existence
of Usenet namely EDUCATION.
A few people are using it to their own apparent financial advantage and
should be made aware of the danger to the MAC groups this causes.
Come on guys. This group and its associated group net.micro.mac is one of
the "Lights of my life" and I am sure that I am not alone. PLEASE don't spoil
the fun for a few measly dollars.
Please post more source and more examples. In my own turn I hope to do
the same when I feel that it is a genuine contribution and IT WILL NOT BE
SHAREWARE but simply shared!
--
david
... David W.Taylor, MicroPro Product Development
{dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!sagan!davidbeth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (11/01/85)
[Hear, hear! Here, here!] From: david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor), Message-ID: <170@sagan.UUCP>: >Summary: Plea for sanity and continuance of a true learning experience > >I agree with previous poster to net.sources.mac that it is a highly useful >group and should be allowed to survive. And I third that (e)motion. Keep it coming, kids. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "I once heard the remainder of a colony of ants, which had been partially obliterated by a cow's foot, seriously discussing the intentions of the gods towards their civilization." -- Archy the Cockroach
fritz@utastro.UUCP (Fritz Benedict) (11/01/85)
<munch>
Another vote for the continued existence of net.sources.mac. I and many
of my colleagues have obtained much of value from this newsgroup. These
public domain desk accessories and applications have increased my
productivity both at work and at home. Rename net.sources.mac to
appease the purists, but don't pull the plug on it.
--
Fritz Benedict (512)471-4461x448
uucp: {...noao,decvax,ut-sally}!utastro!fritz
arpa: fritz@ut-ngp
snail: Astronomy, U of Texas, Austin, TX 78712bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/02/85)
I for one would find it extremely painful not to have access to the
Macintosh software that is being posted. My productivity in my job
is greatly enhanced by it. I can live without the games, but I would
have a very hard time living without the utilities and other useful
software that I can get in NO OTHER WAY.
Some are arguing that the stuff posted to net.sources.mac doesn't
have anything to do with UNIX and that therefore net.sources.mac
should get the axe. I strongly disagree. In the first place,
95%* of what is posted to usenet doesn't have anything to do with
UNIX. And in the second, a larger proportion of the stuff
in net.sources.mac *does* relate directly to UNIX (through the
use of Macs and their peripherals in UNIX environments) than is
true of most newsgroups. So I just don't buy this idea.
Yes, phone bills are high. Yes, this is a burden on backbone
sites. Yes, we should find a way to improve the situation. But
let's do it rationally, not by throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.
------
* Rhetorical statistic :-)
--
Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP)
bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)genem@peoam.UUCP (11/04/85)
In article <170@sagan.UUCP> david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor) writes: > > > >I agree with previous poster to net.sources.mac that it is a highly useful >group and should be allowed to survive. The vast majority of material >coming over the wires is useful for one of the main reasons for the existence >of Usenet namely EDUCATION. > A few people are using it to their own apparent financial advantage and >should be made aware of the danger to the MAC groups this causes. > Come on guys. This group and its associated group net.micro.mac is one of >the "Lights of my life" and I am sure that I am not alone. PLEASE don't spoil >the fun for a few measly dollars. > Please post more source and more examples. In my own turn I hope to do >the same when I feel that it is a genuine contribution and IT WILL NOT BE >SHAREWARE but simply shared! >-- >david >... David W.Taylor, MicroPro Product Development >{dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!sagan!david ------------------------------------------------- I could not agree more. The more I use and develop on the MAC the more I am convinced it has made major new inroads into system and software implementation. Structured languages and documented programming were met with resistance. Unless we develop new concepts and are open to new concepts, we are placing our heads in the sand once again. UNIX and any other operating system can learn alot from MAC derived software. If by no other means than carrying thoughts and ideas from the MAC to their world. My single vote is that this group should be allowed to exist and that a more formal way of announcing cancellations should be devised, to insure the users of said groups are given fair warning of impending cancellation. C. Eugene Mueller District Service Manager Perkin-Elmer Corp Santa Clara Ca
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (11/05/85)
> In article <1753@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: > >I hope that if Mr. Spencer's selfish desire to cancel net.sources.mac ... > > Nothing selfish about it. Mr. Spencer's at one of Ontario's financially > strapped universities and he (and the powers that be) find it hard to > justify paying so much in long distance charges for so much repetitive > and sometimes useless junk. > > Now if you would like to prove yourself un-selfish, you should offer to > pay for his long distance costs. We already pay the long-distance costs for a university here in Orlando. All Mr. Spencer has to do is quit sending net.sources.mac through his site (and quit receiving it at his site), since he doesn't like it. > Very few people on the net (myself included) pay for the privilege, or do > anything to help maintain the net. I look at it as a simple case of "put > up or shut up". If you want to see net.sources.mac, you pay for it, > because *someone* has to. We do pay for it, since we have no local neighbors, and it comes all the way from New Jersey. There's a major distinction between saying "no" to something yourself, and telling everyone else they can't do it too just because you can't or don't want to. Many problems today result from the inability or unwillingness to make this distinction. The problem is that some sites take on an unusual load, and become "backbone" sites, and this becomes all intermingled with notions of power and authority. It is the responsibility of Usenet participants, in my opinion, to each bear the costs of part of the long-distance transmission of Usenet data. If the Usenet can't survive in *that* way, then that's simple economics, and it's fine; I suspect, indeed, that it is part of the long-term evolutionary direction of the net. However, one can reduce one's costs without exercising one's hostilities against particular newsgroups. Look at National Semiconductor; did Chuqui go and ask people to cancel net.sources.mac when they had to reduce their costs? Some time ago our management did a cost analysis of our Usenet feed, and determined that it actually was a very small proportion of the long distance costs at this site. The reason is that we exercise restraint and prudence in the allocation of resources. It only takes one long-distance Usenet feed to serve a city. With multiple sites willing to bear the cost, you can partition the transmission of data and further reduce the expense at each site, something I don't see much of at present. If one takes on greater responsibility than this, one must expect a diversity of interests in the people served. It's just one of those tradeoffs; with great power comes great responsibility. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
hen@bu-cs.UUCP (Bill Henneman) (11/05/85)
This is probably going to cause incredible flame traffic, but what the heck. I would like to see net.xxx.sources stay around, but would like to propose that the word *sources* be interpreted in the computer science sense (i.e., stuff that goes into a compiler or assembler), not the more general common usage: ASCII text only, no binaries. This would have three side-effects: 1) the much-discussed concern over abuse of the net by for-profit shareware posters vanishes; 2) the amount of traffic to the newsgroup declines; 3) the potential for malignant trojan horse practical jokes vanishes (it hasn't been a problem here, but it has happened on some BBSs). This is a compromise solution, and it comes at some cost to the readers of the net. Nonetheless, I feel that the restricted sources group would be of value, and certainly of greater value than having the group vanish altogether. Bill Henneman Computer Research Center Boston University
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/05/85)
> Mr Spencer, I'm sure you have the best interests of the net at heart Actually, I have the survival of the local section of the net at heart. The bills are becoming unsupportable; the volume of traffic must come down. (No, compress and 2400 baud are not enough -- we already use both. The net has demonstrated a remarkable ability to outgrow such temporary fixes, and in fact to grow faster than the rate of introduction of such fixes.) > I must assert that net.sources.mac is used by a number of people at my organ- > ization and many others at other sites that I have been communicating with > regularly over the past year for legitimate UNIX related work... I am willing to believe this. Are you willing to prove it by using groups like net.sources.mac to publish things that are of use to non-Mac users, i.e. NOT JUST MAC-SPECIFIC BINARIES?!? There is little evidence of this to date. I agree that net.sources.mac directly supports the work-related efforts of many people, a fair number of them involved with Unix as well. What I don't believe, I'm afraid, is that the rest of us are getting a fair return on it. Yes, the net helps you: what have you done to return the favor? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (11/05/85)
> >In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially > >>since it's now #1 in volume... > > > >I would second that. The shareware postings are of course irritating > >but even the non-commercial stuff bothers me. The way I see it, > >there's a small group of mac users who have discovered this "free" way > >of distributing software, namely USENET. It reminds me of the > >proposals to form net.peace on the basis that USENET was a good way > >for them to keep in touch. The common problem that I have with this is > >that both these interests have nothing to do with the nature of the > >network or its intended use, namely to support unix users. If the > >volume were low net.sources.mac would be much more acceptable than > >net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the > >volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get > >rid of it. > > Some very useful software for interfacing Macs to UNIX, e.g., macget, macput, that window program, etc. have come over net.sources.mac. The nature of the net is that there's a lot of junk on it - but there's a few gems hidden among the muck, and thats why we love it. Let's keep net.sources.mac, but maybe people could be a little more careful about postings.
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (11/06/85)
In article <1753@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >I hope that if Mr. Spencer's selfish desire to cancel net.sources.mac >actually gains momentum, the hundreds of sites who do actively use it can >cooperate to continue the distribution of it. Net.micro.mac is one of the >most successful and useful newsgroups on the Usenet. I have a feeling from the flack that has been produced just by suggesting the elimination of the group that there is a very large user base out there that is not going to go away any time soon. I have recieved an incredible volume of mail from many sites looking for information on the use of the Macintosh in the Unix environment. Once a group of this size forms around a common interest it is like a river that can only be diverted. I have to say that Mr Spencer and other backbone sites have real problems with net volume and as they do pay the bills they have a right to ease their prob- lems any way they can. The solution is not to get rid of the group across the net, however, but for individual sites to pass what news they feel they can afford and allow those sites that have a specific interest to find, create, and maintain the necessary contacts to keep the information flow going. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
royt@gatech.CSNET (Roy M Turner) (11/06/85)
In article <371@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >You know, if net.sources.mac contained sources it'd sure be less likely to >generate this sort of reaction. I think I've seen a total of one peice >of source code in it. Fine, binhex up the resources fork, but if you're >going to post to a sources group, post sources. > Well, perhaps you could recommend a language for the postings? Pascal? MSBasic? Assembler? C (and are all the C's available for the Mac compatible??)? XLISP?? As it is now, the binhex files aren't readable by humans, but they *are* usable by all MacIntosh owners (unless you have done something funky to your Mac, of course). If source is posted, then it is usable to only a small percentage of MacIntosh owners, ie, those with that particular language. If you want the source, you are probably wanting to change something in it (else you would just compile it anyway), and can ask the author of it, and if he or she wants you to have access to the source, he/she can send it to you. Roy PS--don't bother with flames, my "n" key is getting worn out! :-)
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/06/85)
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't deal with micros much except under contract. Could someone please explain what shareware and freeware are? In addition, which one was going to be named after Flugel? -Ron
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (11/06/85)
> I would like to see net.xxx.sources stay around, but would like to propose > that the word *sources* be interpreted in the computer science sense > (i.e., stuff that goes into a compiler or assembler), not the more general > common usage: ASCII text only, no binaries. But some of us don't have compilers, because we bought our machines back in the early days, and so have small macs that can't compile... -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
cag@cuuxb.UUCP (C. Gerlach) (11/08/85)
Well, I think this has gone far enough. I am getting tired of seeing this discussion being carried out in parallel in 4 or 5 newsgroups. Lets get to the bottom of this and then move it to the appropriate newsgroup so the rest of us can get on with our work. I would like to suggest that this discussion be changed from how to eliminate a newsgroup to the real problem of how sites can minimize the costs of being on the network. The current discussion of network wide censorship is counter-productive and only aggravates the problem by greatly adding to the traffic on the network. The scope of this problem may be network wide but it remains one of how each system controls its environment. Network wide solutions for individual site problems will not work since every site is different and has unique problems. It would appear that a better approach would be to examine the options each site has in managing its portion of the network (that is, the system itself and the links it has to its neighboring systems). If it becomes apparent that sites can not control themselves, lets identify the tools needed by the site's network administrator and see what can be done to get the tools built. I have to believe that these issues are being discussed in the network administration and management newsgroups. Continued discussion in other newsgroups of censorship and threatened network wide removal does little to foster rational thinking. And misses the main issue. Lets attack the real problem and stop arguing amongst ourselves. Its not a question of which groups have to go, but of network management and control at the individual site level. Now that I've said my piece, I apologize to anyone I may have offended. And as usual these are my own thoughts. No one else would want them. Chuck Gerlach ...!ihnp4!cuuxb!cag