dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough) (05/25/88)
From article <2038@copper.TEK.COM>, by michaelk@copper.TEK.COM (Michael D. Kersenbrock): > .... Discussion of why usenetters can't post source & binaries to > comp.os.cpm > SOLUTIONS: > ========= > b) A new USENET group for binaries and sources: > > comp.os.cpm.sources > > (and allow both binaries and sources). > > This new group would NOT be gatewayed the the ARPA world. To re-iterate a suggestion of mine vis a vis the comp.binaries.cbm discussion would it not be possible to create a "cover-all" newsgroup, called comp.programs.eight-bit that contains everything. I.E. CP/M binaries, source, C64 / C128 BASIC progs, assembler source, C source, Commodore binary executables. Yeah, I know it'd be a real mish-mash, but there is a lot of interest in a CBM binaries / source group (if you don't believe me, go look at the last two weeks in comp.sys.cbm :-) Add to that the fact that I am now 12 mailings behind on getting my assembler out to .UUCP sites, gives you some idea of the amount of interest we have here. Please note - I have cross posted to what I believe are the relevant newsgroups, but followups are directed to news.groups (the correct place for them) Watch that space for details. -- dg@lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ | +-+-+ ....... !harvard!adelie!cfisun!lakart!dg +-+-+ | +---+
walker@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Rick Walker) (06/03/88)
> > .... Discussion of why usenetters can't post source & binaries to > > comp.os.cpm > > > SOLUTIONS: > > ========= > > b) A new USENET group for binaries and sources: > > > > comp.os.cpm.sources > > > > (and allow both binaries and sources). > > > > This new group would NOT be gatewayed the the ARPA world. > > To re-iterate a suggestion of mine vis a vis the comp.binaries.cbm discussion > would it not be possible to create a "cover-all" newsgroup, called > comp.programs.eight-bit > that contains everything. I.E. CP/M binaries, source, C64 / C128 BASIC > progs, assembler source, C source, Commodore binary executables. Yeah, I > know it'd be a real mish-mash, but there is a lot of interest in a CBM > binaries / source group (if you don't believe me, go look at the last two > weeks in comp.sys.cbm :-) Add to that the fact that I am now 12 mailings > behind on getting my assembler out to .UUCP sites, gives you some idea > of the amount of interest we have here. I would like to give one more vote FOR something of this sort. The ARPA CP/M archives (SIMTEL et al.) are a great public service, but are very inconvenient for us non-ARPA folks to use. The result is that we never see any of the new software that gets absorbed into the ivory tower of the ARPA archives. It is unfortunate that this situation is perpetuated by ARPA threatening to drop their gateway if anyone even thinks of posting source or binaries on the net. A newsgroup for non-ARPA sites (specifically non-gatewayed) which carried sources would be a great compromise. The situation now is far too biased towards the needs/wants/requirements of the ARPA group, to the detriment of the community at large. -Rick Walker ...hplabs!hpl-opus!walker
budden@tetra.UUCP (06/04/88)
The users of the 'arpa' side of the internet and the 'non-arpa' are probably equally heterogeneous (myself, I'm actually on the mil side). So saying the usenet user needs are different from an arpanet/simtel20 user is making a distinction where there probably isn't any. The problem is one of network abuse and capacity consumption. If you post things like binaries, all those newsgroup sites get tons of bits, whether the users want them or not. The solution within arpanet was to use simtel20 -- you only use the network capacity you need to download what you want. Unfortunately, we are running into a problem. Defense Communications Agency, which operates both the arpa and mil parts of DDN isn't really in the business of providing us comms services as a free good. In a year or so, we will all be paying packet charges for the services -- DCA has to pass the costs back to the users. One of the unanswered questions is how you manage repositories like Simtel20 or CU20B -- the costing algorithm does not account for this at all. Nobody in DCA really wants to kill them, but they don't have a decent way to keep them providing the services. Worse, while we can all see the benefits of these bboards, they will be difficult to justify too -- who pays the packet charges for bboard traffic? The poster? If the reader is to incur them, he will have to pay whether he actually reads or not. Sticky. So when Keith enforces the discipline, there are some very good reasons. Rex Buddenberg
kenb@techsup.TANDY.COM (06/08/88)
in reference to keith's posting about the availability of sources on his rcpm and genie... i've downloaded many sources he's placed there without problems.. in fact, i prefer it. i don't have to worry about code that's gotten munged or truncated while passisng through a site, and in the case of binary files -- i don't need to worry about splicing all the parts and uudecoding. connect charges are low enough on genie at 1200 baud to make it a reasonable option. i really don't care to take sides on this issue, however i did feel the need to back up keith's claim that the files are posted, are available, and at what i consider to be a very reasonable price (toll call/genie). i appreciate his efforts in this area. ken brookner n5lpi uucp: ...!ihnp4!techsup!kenb