tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (05/11/88)
This is a request for COMMENT on creating a new group: comp.binaries.gif. This is NOT a request for votes - let's discuss it first. GIF stands for Graphics Interface Format, and was invented by the folks at CompuServe fairly recently as a storage format for color raster graphics images. It is designed to be portable across many different computer architectures. GIF files can be anywhere from a few K to half a megabyte in size (this is the range I have seen, anyway); the average seems to be about 50k bytes. The raster size and color palette is defined within each picture file. Implementations exist for most of the popular personal computers at this point; I really don't know what has been done for Suns et cetera, but in principle you can view GIF on any graphics display. Anyway, we are starting to see a fair volume of GIF files posted to the net, along with programs to view them. I am proposing that we create a newsgroup just for the picture (xxxx.gif) files themselves; here are my two main reasons: 1. Right now people tend to post GIF files to the .sys or .bin newsgroup for *their* brand of computer, be it Mac, Amiga or whatever. Thus people with other makes who COULD view them, don't see them because they unsubscribe to the foreign groups. We could ask everybody to crosspost like mad, but these files are large enough that the extra space consumed would be a bother to sysadmins. 2. Conversely, there are people who CAN'T view graphics files, who nonetheless have to pay to carry them right now because they are lumped in with unrelated -- but desired - material. Pictures are not the same as programs, so some comp.binaries moderators may dislike having them submitted; worse yet are the discussion groups like rec.startrek where X% of readers have nothing but VT100s! GIF is totally useless to them, and bound to remain so. The two big advantages, then, of comp.binaries.gif would be (a) it would allow GIF-capable users on ALL kinds of machines to share a common pool of pictures; and (b) it would insulate NON-GIF-capable sites from the comm burden of carrying pictures -- they could turn off the group at their discretion. I suppose if we created this group, then comp.binaries.gif.d would kind of have to happen to, because users are still learning how to view GIF from what I can see in the message base. Well this is longer than I intended, but those are the issues. Dunno if Gene would prefer your comments posted here or mailed to me, but I will "fer sure" summarize anything I do get in the mail. Thanks for listening. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding?
Mike_Wiley-E-Coyote_Neff@cup.portal.com (05/15/88)
> This is a request for COMMENT on creating a new group: comp.binaries.gif. > This is NOT a request for votes - let's discuss it first. > > Anyway, we are starting to see a fair volume of GIF files posted to the > net, along with programs to view them. I am proposing that we create a > newsgroup just for the picture (xxxx.gif) files themselves;... ^^^^^^^^ Thanks for posting this Tom. As a poster of some GIF files I was thinking of posting a similar posting myself. I fully support creation of a new newgroup. However, let's not stop and limit it to GIF format files. How about calling it something like comp.binaries.image or something like that. I also believe that GIF is the most popular format at present. However, there are a number of other graphic formats such as TIFF, IFF, Macpaint, postscript, etc. that cross different machine boundaries like GIF does that would benefit from being placed in this newsgroup. As graphic image standards progress and perhaps we get standards that become superior to GIF ( support more than 8 bit color colormaps, better compression algorithms than LZW ), the group comp.binaries.image could grow into these standards. The format of the file could be placed in the subject line of the header. > here are my > two main reasons: > > 1. Right now people tend to post GIF files to the .sys or .bin newsgroup > for *their* brand of computer, be it Mac, Amiga or whatever. Thus people > with other makes who COULD view them, don't see them because they unsubscribe > to the foreign groups. We could ask everybody to crosspost like mad, but > these files are large enough that the extra space consumed would be a bother > to sysadmins. Yes! Also, since they are posted in different newsgroups, even if an ibm pc user goes into the comp.binaries.mac group for instance, the GIF postings in that group might have been translated using binhex as opposed to uuencode. By having one newsgroup we could hopefully have one method of translation ( read on... ). > 2. Conversely, there are people who CAN'T view graphics files, who > nonetheless have to pay to carry them right now because they are lumped in > with unrelated -- but desired - material. Pictures are not the same as > programs, so some comp.binaries moderators may dislike having them submitted; > worse yet are the discussion groups like rec.startrek where X% of readers > have nothing but VT100s! GIF is totally useless to them, and bound to > remain so. > > The two big advantages, then, of comp.binaries.gif would be (a) it would > allow GIF-capable users on ALL kinds of machines to share a common pool > of pictures; and (b) it would insulate NON-GIF-capable sites from the > comm burden of carrying pictures -- they could turn off the group at their > discretion. Good points. I also believe that we should consider moderation of this group. This would help postings in the following ways: 1. This person could regulate the flow of postings since the size of postings would probably be large enough to create network traffic problems if enough were posted at the same time. 2. The moderator could screen the files for potentially objectionable content and could add warnings to or censor the files where necessary. 3. The moderator could screen the files for errors to prevent costly reposts of files that were munged. 4. The moderator could translate more obscure file formats to something like GIF so that more machine architectures could view them unless the poster would request otherwise. 5. The moderator could ensure that the files would all be uuencoded ( if this were agreed upon as the translation method of choice ) as opposed to being zooed or binhexed or the like. 6. The moderator could ensure that no copyright violations would be broken for images stating copyrights in the picture ( not immediately obvious without uudecoding and viewing ). 7. If possible the moderator could be located at a site where he/she could keep these images in an area where they could be obtained through anonymous ftp. > I suppose if we created this group, then comp.binaries.gif.d would kind of > have to happen to, because users are still learning how to view GIF from > what I can see in the message base. I like this idea too. > > Well this is longer than I intended, but those are the issues. Dunno if > Gene would prefer your comments posted here or mailed to me, but I will > "fer sure" summarize anything I do get in the mail. Thanks for listening. > > -- > Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff > "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF > will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding? Tom, where are your relatives originally from? Mike Neff, alias "Coyote" Coyote@cup.portal.com
laba-4an@web4d.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (05/16/88)
It's about time a group like this was started up. Almost every .binaries group on the net has been getting GIF, IFF, or some other format of pictures. Program mailing lists have been distributing them. There has been no indication that this trend is going to decrease, so I think it's about time to create one. Also: if there is an archive site, it would be possible to put a generic GIF viewer for every kind of architecture. I've been scanning comp.binaries.ibm.pc for GIF pictures, and have noticed about 15 different postings of GIF viewers. -- laba-4an@widow.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden)
vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal) (05/16/88)
Yes, let's create a new group for gif and other format picture files ! How about naming it comp.pics, though ? Let the readers of the group decide later on about whether to split it into .gif, .tiff, whether to moderate etc. Venu P Gopal ihnp4!ihuxy!vg55611
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (05/16/88)
I just worry about the amount of traffic such a group would have on it. Let's say that 5 or 6 people all decide to put a picture out on the same day. If each picture is 60K (a reasonable figure for a good color GIF) we will have about 300K come by (after uuencoding) in just one day. This COULD be (I'm not saying WILL be) a massive burden on the net, especially when it's new and lots of folks want to put their favorite picture out there for everybody to see. And what about really big pictures? I've been assuming that folks would restrain themselves to pictures with only about 256 colors and compressed in some fashion (like GIF), after being on the net a while you folks should know that there are some folks who won't exercise such restraint. "Oh, and by the way here's a 1.2 Meg dump from my Ultra Scanner 2000 of a picture of my pet monkey Richard.... ==== Cut Here ====" How will we prevent this from happening? I don't want to lose sites because of a big fiasco and we're already wasting enough bandwidth with talk.bizarre. I couldn't vote for this group until we had some assurance that it wouldn't be the Moby Dick of Usenet. John Munsch Obviously, I'm not speaking for my company. They have people for that.
las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr) (05/17/88)
Yes. Let's create a gif (or pictures) group. I have collected 5 gif
viewers, but I have only 1 gif picture (blastoff)! I haven't time to
spelunk for all the gif pictures I hear are being posted. I may have
missed many of the alleged postings due to running out of file system
space at our site (again).
regards, Larry
--
Who: Larry A. Shurr (cbosgd!osu-cis!apr!las or try {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbcp1!las)
What: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Where: _The Portrait of Dorian Gray_ - Oscar Wilde
Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily the opinion of APR or any APR client.johnm@trsvax.UUCP (05/20/88)
> CompuServe - GO PICS. Probably the largest selection anywhere, since this > is where GIF originated. Expensive @ $12.50 1200 or 2400 baud. There is ONE OTHER option here and it isn't a solution for everybody. If you are interested in writing some programs to display GIF pictures, convert formats, etc. and you have a good programming background then you might consider making application to become a GIF developer. It would allow you access to Data Library 17 in the PICS section (which is normally restricted from peoples access) and all of the developers messages. It also turns on the Free Flag while you are within the PICS forum so that you aren't paying the above fee. It lasts about six months or so and that should be plenty of time for you to crank out a program and get another six months, etc. John Munsch Oh, and for gods sake, DON'T tell them *I* sent you. (half :-)
wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) (05/21/88)
In article <2528@ihuxy.ATT.COM>, vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal) writes: > Yes, let's create a new group for gif and other format picture files ! > How about naming it comp.pics, though ? Yup, that would be my preference, too. As a precedent, there is a special interest group on CompuServe call pics. In fact, that is where GIF originated. Besides, comp.pics is easy to type. :-) -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043
dani@ritcsh.UUCP (Dani Kadoch) (05/21/88)
In article <194300027@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: |And what about really big pictures? I've been assuming that folks would |restrain themselves to pictures with only about 256 colors and compressed in |some fashion (like GIF), after being on the net a while you folks should know |that there are some folks who won't exercise such restraint. "Oh, and by the |way here's a 1.2 Meg dump from my Ultra Scanner 2000 of a picture of my pet |monkey Richard.... ==== Cut Here ====" |How will we prevent this from happening? I don't want to lose sites because of |a big fiasco and we're already wasting enough bandwidth with talk.bizarre. I |couldn't vote for this group until we had some assurance that it wouldn't be |the Moby Dick of Usenet. The answer to all this is very simple - have a moderator that will filter out humongous(sp?) pictures, and also restrict the volume of material coming through, maybe to a certain amount of K per day. -- +/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/+ > Dani Kadoch @ Computer Science House @ Rochester Institute of Technology < > UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!ritcsh!dani BITNET: dnk8842@ritvax < +\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\+
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (05/25/88)
In article <194300027@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > [About a proposed binary visual images newsgroup:] >I just worry about the amount of traffic such a group would have on it. [...examples of 300K/day postings, possibly much worse...] How will >we prevent this from happening? I don't want to lose sites because >of a big fiasco and we're already wasting enough bandwidth with >talk.bizarre. This always floors me. Last time I looked at the news.lists postings, all the talk newsgroups together comprise 12%, or 1/8th of the total net traffic volume, yet one "just for fun" newsgroup, talk.bizarre, is going to bring the net to its knees? Get real. Right now on xanth, our 4 day backlog of talk.bizarre postings is taking up 399K, or about the equivalent of _seven_ postings in your proposed .gif newsgroup, and this is 234 talk.bizarre postings. This constitutes a bit under 2% of our retained news holdings, and we expired the sources and binaries groups by hand a couple days back because they overflowed /news by all going into high volume phase together, for the second time in a month, so that is an unrealisticly high estimate of the impact of talk.bizarre. I guess any press is better than being forgotten, but no thoughtful person uses talk.bizarre as a whipping boy for the net traffic problems. Kent, the man from xanth.
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (05/26/88)
> ...Right now on xanth, >our 4 day backlog of talk.bizarre postings is taking up 399K, or about >the equivalent of _seven_ postings in your proposed .gif newsgroup, >and this is 234 talk.bizarre postings. This constitutes a bit under >2% of our retained news holdings... Then it seems that we have about 2% waste on the net that we could get rid of. I don't intend to use talk.bizarre as a whipping boy for all the traffic. There have been plenty of grand scale abusers in the past (comp.binaries.ibm.pc, rec.arts.startrek, and comp.sys.amiga to name a few). I just happen to dislike talk.bizarre immensely and to me it is a continous source of waste unlike each of the above mentioned which had a big surge and then settled back to something more reasonable. It is perhaps fortunate that I don't have anything to do with the affairs at this site or else talk.bizarre would not get anywhere past sys1. That is obviously just my opinion. John Munsch