SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (04/18/88)
Brint Cooper <abc@brl.arpa> writes: >Mike Jetzer writes: > >> Several people have declared that comp.binaries.apple2 is "here," but we >> aren't getting it here at Marquette U. Could anybody enlighten me as to >> why we don't get it? > > comp.binaries.apple2 is a Usenet news group. It is not a >mailing list. For this group to be available, your site must receive But Mike's on studsys, which IS a UUCP site (or, at least, is an address known to UUCP). Evidently he gets comp.sys.apple. Doesn't receiving one newsgroup imply access to them all? > Everything sent to APPLE2-L will be "posted" to >comp.binaries.apple2. That's good news (how does that happen anyway -- are you relying on Paul Nakada's volunteering? If so, there will be the question of how to keep it going when Paul graduates). "Larry W. Virden" <osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> writes: >6000-8000 sites which ONLY have access via uucp to usenet... While I comprehend the point, it seems unlikely that more than than a few score of sites really are breathlessly awaiting comp.binaries.apple2 (after all, there were fewer than 200 votes about starting the group). More to the point is that a SUBSTANTIAL fraction of APPLE2-L's mailing list are UUCP addresses. Receiving APPLE2-L (even posting things for it) has NOT been an insurmountable difficulty (there have been a few people who have had trouble finding a reliable mailpath from <and to> bitnet, but that's typical UUCP isn't it?). There have been several UUCP sites redistributing APPLE2-L, a reasonable means of serving people who have had trouble getting mail directly from brownvm. Do we REALLY need two archive sites? If the LISTSERV software gets fixed so that // JOB FILES-TO="rfc822 address" will work, then it will be possible to retrieve files from APPLE2-L from most UUCP sites. Based on how long it took to get binaries.apple2 in the first place, I'd bet LISTSERV gets fixed before an ftp site is found. BTW re: a possible comp.sources.apple2, or comp.bugs etc., one lesson that should be extracted from the comp.binaries experience is that the best way to assure enough total votes to get a decision is to find someone who is at a gateway with access to USENET and the INTERNET (make friends with folks at Harvard, Berkeley, and other similar places). --------------------- Disclaimer: The "look and feel" of this message is exclusively MINE! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut
cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (04/19/88)
[Sorry this is so huge a posting. I found I had a lot to say.] > [Mike Jetzer's site isn't getting comp.binaries.apple2 yet.] > > ... Mike's on studsys, which IS a UUCP site (or, at least, is an address > known to UUCP). Evidently he gets comp.sys.apple. Doesn't receiving one > newsgroup imply access to them all? No. It's possible that, for whatever reason, a site upstream from Mike's is not carrying the group, in which case he wouldn't be getting the feed. He should talk to whoever's in charge of news at his system to find out what's going on; it could be that way for any number of reasons. > . . . it seems unlikely that more than than a > few score of sites really are breathlessly awaiting comp.binaries.apple2 > (after all, there were fewer than 200 votes about starting the group). I tried to vote for the new group at least twice, but my vote wasn't in the final tally. This was true the last time the vote went out too. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because only 200 or so "YES" votes made it through, that those people are the only ones who voted "YES", or that they'll be the only ones using the group. The software groups for other machines are always among the most-used on the net, I see no reason why the Apple II group will be different. > More to the point is that a SUBSTANTIAL fraction of APPLE2-L's mailing > list are UUCP addresses. Receiving APPLE2-L (even posting things for > it) has NOT been an insurmountable difficulty (there have been a few > people who have had trouble finding a reliable mailpath from <and to> > bitnet, but that's typical UUCP isn't it?). Even supposing that those of us on the Usenet end of things would be able to find some sort of reliable gateway to the Bitnet and APPLE2-L, which is not quite so easy as you seem to think, we would still either have to send periodic requests for new material as it became available, or get on the mailing list. The former is pretty painful from this end, and the latter is out-and-out ludicrous for some of us who are on academic accounts with small quotas in the spool directory and accounts that only last for four months or so at a shot. It is a lot easier for someone on the Usenet to subscribe or unsubscribe to the newsgroup than it is for them to figure out the intricacies of internetwork mailing, and then get on and off the mailing list at the beginning and end of every semester. (I realize not everyone is in that boat, but a lot of us are.) I'm not a net.guru yet, and I don't see why I should have to track one down just in order to get my hands on that yummy software. :-) > Do we REALLY need two archive sites? If the LISTSERV software gets > fixed so that // JOB FILES-TO="rfc822 address" will work, then it > will be possible to retrieve files from APPLE2-L from most UUCP > sites. Based on how long it took to get binaries.apple2 in the > first place, I'd bet LISTSERV gets fixed before an ftp site is > found. Whatever works. I would rather be able to connect right up and do an FTP and know right away that I have the file than trust the inter-network mailing system with it. I have enough trouble getting mail from one UUCP site to another without having to try and get it both ways across a gateway. > BTW re: a possible comp.sources.apple2, or comp.bugs etc., one lesson > that should be extracted from the comp.binaries experience is that > the best way to assure enough total votes to get a decision is to find > someone who is at a gateway with access to USENET and the INTERNET... > > Murphy A. Sewall For the time being, I see nothing wrong with posting source code in comp.binaries.apple2 and bug reports, etc. in comp.sys.apple. If the traffic warrants in the future, seperate groups can be set up. Anyone who complains about "source postings in a binary newsgroup" is missing the whole point of the group in the first place -- to get the damn software out there. Until bug reports start overwhelming comp.sys.apple, let's leave well enough alone... Lazlo Nibble (cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu, through mid-May sometime...)