scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) (11/12/90)
I remember the last time this came around in a big way, two and a half years ago. Kathy Vincent was still active, and I was a big-mouthed newbie system administrator. We held exactly the same discussion then, and I couldn't even tell you now which side I was on. Let me touch on a little history, and perhaps answer some questions along the way. John Ruckstuhl: >Some will argue that "no one can have real troubles getting unix-pc if they >make just a small effort". Likely, several people will generously offer a >feed of the unix-pc newsgroups, or suggest ways to gain access - perhaps >via the digest that Scott Hazen Mueller kindly mails. I won't argue with all of the trouble that you had; I know some small part of it just from trying to get the digest to you. The digest was an offshoot of the last major unix-pc vs. comp.sys.att.unix-pc discussion that I mentioned above. At the time, I was favoring merging unix-pc.general with comp.sys.att (it's starting to all come back now), and was arguing with Kathy Vincent over the value of doing so. The discussion turned to 'gatewaying' unix-pc into comp.sys.att, and perhaps creating a back gateway as well. In order to see if the idea was worthwhile, I started the digest, to give increased access to unix-pc.*, and to see if there was enough demand for unix-pc.* from the rest of the net. Paul Kirkaas: >Well, this is a nice idea, but the only group I am really exited about here >is unix-pc.sources --- and that's the group I was told was too big to forward >via email. To clear up some confusion: Paul is clearly (to my mind) paraphrasing some private correspondence that he and I had with regard to unix-pc.sources. When I started the digest, I considered the question of including unix-pc.sources, and concluded that it would not work well. I still hold that opinion; at 44 addresses currently on the list, a 'typical' four-part posting of about 50k per piece would generate 4.4M of outbound mail traffic from here, and that's assuming that my mailer actually managed to send only one copy for every two addresses. The typical case would be somewhat worse... Paul continues: >Why not just move the whole unix-pc tree under comp.sys.unix-pc, which is >clearly where it belonged in the first place? I'd argue with that 'clearly'. Had it truly been so cut-and-dried, unix-pc would never have started out as the first alternate hierarchy. There are advantages to the status quo. Unix-pc.* is a fairly tightly focused network, with the exception of the periodic postings of 'how do I get Unix for my PC?'. Because of the non-Usenet nature of unix-pc.*, people are sometimes a little friendlier, a touch more easy-going about making links. Many sites will set up a low-volume link for unix-pc.* that would not have made the connection for either mail or a full newsfeed, in my experience. With regard to moving unix-pc.*, the net was a different world even just a couple of years back, and we would not have been able to merge cleanly with the Usenet; at the time of the last discussion, there was no question but that unix-pc.* would have to be merged with comp.sys.att. Now, it is a different story; there is no official backbone, and everything in the Usenet takes a vote. Could we get one-hundred-plus voters in favor of this issue, and do we really want to? Given that we could, unix-pc.* could well form its own subtree somewhere under comp.sys. I have no special wisdom on how well or poorly supported such a move would be - while I believe that somewhere between eighty and one hundred people have subscribed to the digest, I would hardly claim them as a deliverable constituency, a group that I could get to vote en bloc in favor of a merge proposal. Back when I started doing my mailings, I had the notion in mind that I would track subscriptions, and use that information to justify moving unix-pc.* into comp.sys.att. After a couple of years of doing it, I no longer feel that it is a major issue. The information is available, though admittedly it is not always available for free, unlike the Usenet often seems to be. But then, one of the basic precepts of the unix-pc.* net, and of Usenet in general, is that after a while you should start to pay your own way. Giving unix-pc.* a free ride with the comp.sys.att may seem attractive, but is it really worth the cost? As long as unix-pc.* is a distinct hierarchy, we remain in some sense in control of our own fates. If the NSF pulled the plug on Netnews on the Internet (no more NNTP), we would still go on. Sites like Zorch and Ditka, Galaxia and Hico2, Icus, Pacbell, Ames, and so on, are tied together because *we* want to spend our time, and our phone dollars, sending unix-pc.* across the country. Isn't that worth something? If we were part of comp.sys, sure, I could stop sending digests, but we'd also be at the mercy of the Usenet public in general. Unix-pc: Let it be. Thank you for your time. -- Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott 10122 Amador Oak Ct.| +1 408 253 6767 |Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Cupertino, CA 95014|Love make, not more|for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78/86 login newuser password public
lenny@icus.ICUS.COM (Lenny Tropiano) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov12.012705.15917@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: |>I remember the last time this came around in a big way, two and a half years |>ago. Kathy Vincent was still active, and I was a big-mouthed newbie system [...] |>There are advantages to the status quo. Unix-pc.* is a fairly tightly |>focused network, with the exception of the periodic postings of 'how do I get |>Unix for my PC?'. Because of the non-Usenet nature of unix-pc.*, people are |>sometimes a little friendlier, a touch more easy-going about making links. [...] |>Many sites will set up a low-volume link for unix-pc.* that would not have |>made the connection for either mail or a full newsfeed, in my experience. [...] I agree with Scott's point here, and there are definite advantages to leaving unix-pc.* as is. I may take the unfavorite approach, but I think we should keep things as is. If there is a big wave to remove unix-pc.* and rename to the comp.* hierarchy, then of course I'll go along ... I have no problem giving anyone a unix-pc.* feed, as long as they call me. With Scott offering his mail-feed, then unix-pc.* gets fairly well distributed. Most major sites carry it, along with the many other alternative hierarchies. |>Internet (no more NNTP), we would still go on. Sites like Zorch and Ditka, |>Galaxia and Hico2, Icus, Pacbell, Ames, and so on, are tied together because |>*we* want to spend our time, and our phone dollars, sending unix-pc.* across [...] And I'm sure we'll continue to do so... |>Unix-pc: Let it be. I agree. -L. -- | Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems lenny@icus.ICUS.COM | | ...!{ames,cs.utexas.edu,pacbell}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny | +---------------- 14300 Tandem Blvd #222, Austin, TX 78728 -----------------+