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
rec@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
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!davidgenem@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
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
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