bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (09/29/87)
In article <516@garth.UUCP> fenwick@garth.UUCP (Stephen Fenwick) writes: >What's going on with comp.binaries.mac? My site has been receiving >one file per day for the last couple of weeks--we are currently up to >part 6 of Byron Han's NetHack distribution. Rich Siegel's LSP patch >has yet to show up (this is what I'm bugged about). In article <821@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >We've had the same trouble. We know there are a lot of postable things >out there, including lots of hypercard stackware that is deluging >Genie (for one). Perhaps we need an unmoderated posting group, since >reviewing all the software is probably too much for one moderator. >Any ideas? Well, as moderator of comp.binaries.mac, let me reassure you that I am indeed alive, as is the group. The reason you are getting one posting a day (though that does vary), is exactly why the group is moderated: there is only so much bandwidth, and the postings are spread out over time to limit the bandwidth that this group takes. If you ever look at the statistics that get posted to news.lists, you will find that comp.binaries.mac is quite a high volume group. If this volume ever gets to a level that a majority of the backbone thinks is "too high", you might find that they discontinue forwarding the group. Lest you think this is unlikely, be aware that the possibility of cutting all comp.binaries groups has already been discussed in news.groups. As for the LSP patch, it's next in line after the posting of NetHack concludes with tonight's posting of part 12. It will be posted in seven parts over the next several days. I would have posted the LSP patch earlier, but had trouble getting it from THINK; I finally got it about a week ago after calling Jon Hueras at THINK and giving him a different EMail address. You can also expect to see some hypercard stack sometime in the near future. -- Roger L. Long FileNet Corp {hplabs,trwrb}!felix!bytebug
geb@cadre.UUCP (09/30/87)
In article <8021@felix.UUCP> bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) writes: > >If this volume ever >gets to a level that a majority of the backbone thinks is "too high", >you might find that they discontinue forwarding the group. Lest you >think this is unlikely, be aware that the possibility of cutting all >comp.binaries groups has already been discussed in news.groups. > Whoa, just what is the purpose of the net anyway, and who is paying for it? Look at all the trash that gets onto net.religion, politics, tv, kids, etc., etc., etc. I would think one of the most legitimate uses for the net is software distribution, not the chatting and bickering that goes on in most of the other groups. Who decides these things anyway? How do we get to put in our 2 cents with those who control it?
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <827@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > Whoa, just what is the purpose of the net anyway, and who is paying > for it? Who's paying for it are several major sites that pay long distance bills for moving an exponentially expanding traffic base. > Look at all the trash that gets onto net.religion, > politics, tv, kids, etc., etc., etc. That's why they're now 'talk.' groups. > I would think one of the > most legitimate uses for the net is software distribution, not > the chatting and bickering that goes on in most of the other > groups. Who decides these things anyway? How do we get > to put in our 2 cents with those who control it? Most of the site administrators are UNIX gurus. Anything not directly related to UNIX or news administration is a special interest to them. The statistics suggest that the Mac readership is less than 5% of the overall news readers, so this clearly qualifies as a special interest. We don't own the net, boys, and we're not paying the bills. Believe me, Roger's serious when he says that the people in charge of the net would welcome the opportunity to ditch a high-volume newsgroup like comp.binaries.mac. Of course, I think comp.binaries would be better used if it did not include anything over 5 parts, and did not distribute demonstration copies of commercial software. Both in terms of cost and the USENET charter (which prohibits the use of the net for commercial gain) both are on somewhat shaky ground. -- Joel West (c/o UCSD) Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083 {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu or ihnp4!crash!palomar!joel joel@palomar.cts.com