spaf@gatech.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <934@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) writes: >Apparently a large subset of The Net still gets and forwards net.sources. >Unfortunately, it appears that no one in New England does -- an informal >survey has revealed no sites in New England that receive net.sources. New England doesn't get it. The southeast US doesn't get it. All of Europe doesn't get it. It doesn't go down under, either (Australia). I believe at least 80% of the "traditional" backbone sites don't carry it. What's left may not really be a "large subset" of the net. Net.sources got moved into a moderated group because of continuing complaints from lots of people about the non-sources postings to that group, and the large number of postings of undocumented, uncommented garbage code. Not all of the postings were like that, but the number of such postings was contstant as the volume increased. Three years of pleading with people and trying to educate posters didn't help a bit, and the volume only grew. And grew. The only approach available in the current software was to make the group "semi-moderated" to try to cut down on the cruft that caused the most complaints. We did that. Now, a month or so later, we hear from some people who want an unmoderated sources group back. Some still circulate net.sources. One group has formed an alternate backbone to distribute an "alt.sources". One person is trying to do it the difficult way and form a mailing list, although he's going to piss off a lot of system admins when multiple copies of uncompressed source start passing through their systems (and some are threatening to send him bills for comm time). The fact that people are forming alternative groups is *wonderful*. I'm serious about that. It means they've decided there are groups they want badly enough that they're willing to set up their own links (and pay their own transfer costs), and they'll deal with future worries about content and volume. It means the net is more fragmented, but it is also more likely to survive as the volume continues to grow. Alternative sources groups (or alternative *anything* groups) have a couple of major distinguishing features that some people seem to be overlooking: 1) they don't reach everyone on the net, so they don't get submissions from everywhere, so the volume is lower; 2) to get the group you have to purposely seek it out, so you know ahead of time what you're getting into; 3) you're consciously arranging the feed, so you're spending your own money on the transfer. As such, these groups will be self-limiting. As the volume and cost goes up, fewer sites will be able to get them, and some current subscribers will drop out. That will bring the costs and volume back down, and so on. So, think a few moments before you complain about no moderated sources groups. Has the quality of your life and programming been degraded over the last month or so without it? Do you have the lingering feeling that there is incredibly good code being posted to unmoderated source groups and you're missing it all? If so, consider one of the following: 1) contact hoptoad!gnu about the "alt.sources" newsgroup and how you'd go about setting up a link (you pay) to get it; 2) contact the folks at UUNET to see if they're getting net.sources or alt.sources -- they've indicated they'll carry *all* groups, but again, you pay. 3) think up a way we can have a netwide, unmoderated sources groups that won't bury us alive in garbage. Serious, workable suggestions will get *close* attention -- the sources groups are not the only places where this problem is occuring. -- Gene Spafford Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: spaf@gatech.gatech.edu uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!spaf
reid@decwrl.UUCP (06/11/87)
Gene Spafford talks about alternative groups. I'd like to elaborate on what he said: >Alternative sources groups (or alternative *anything* groups) have a >couple of major distinguishing features that some people seem to be >overlooking: 1) they don't reach everyone on the net, so they don't get >submissions from everywhere, so the volume is lower; 2) to get the >group you have to purposely seek it out, so you know ahead of time what >you're getting into; 3) you're consciously arranging the feed, so >you're spending your own money on the transfer. As such, these groups >will be self-limiting. 1) No group reaches everyone on the net. Even the so-called "mandatory" groups have at best 25% readership. Most sites expire rapidly enough that it isn't even reasonable to look for things in the spool directory for groups that you don't read. I expect alternative groups to have readerships befitting their content, whatever that content might be. 2) Alternative groups are currently forced to be second-class citizens. The periodic "checkgroup" messages flush them from time to time on many systems. The mechanisms for moderators do not really support a moderated alternative group. 3) There is no reason why the alternative groups cannot use the same kind of distribution that the mainstream groups have now: relaying. The use of PC Pursuit and nntp makes it possible to ship alternative groups to many places for not much money. There is no need for alternative networks to be star-shaped, with all news radiating out of a single hub. There can be alternative backbones just as there is an official backbone. Therefore people will not be spending more money per byte on receiving the alternative groups than they will be on receiving official groups. I agree very much with Gene that alternative groups are healthy, and that people who want to pay for them should be allowed to move them around and have them be "real" groups. I think it would be nice if the mechanisms in B News software were a little more accepting of alternative groups.
dsp@ptsfa.UUCP (06/11/87)
In article <15888@gatech.gatech.edu> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: > >New England doesn't get it. The southeast US doesn't get it. All of >Europe doesn't get it. It doesn't go down under, either (Australia). I >believe at least 80% of the "traditional" backbone sites don't carry >it. What's left may not really be a "large subset" of the net. I'm curious - does this mean that New England didn't WANT net.sources? Or the southeast? Or that 2-3 sites had so much leverage that they could decide for the entire region? I don't think that the point's worth debating much longer. As Brian Reid mentions elsewhere, alt.sources will start taking it's place and time will be the judge of whether an unmoderated sources newsgroup has any value. Personally I thought that net.sources was getting to be a waste. But I seem to remember that rn started out there, looking for testers. And quite a few other programs before they became "archival" quality for mod.sources. -- David St. Pierre 415/823-6800 {ihnp4,lll-crg,ames,pyramid}!ptsfa!dsp He would forget his head if it weren't screwed up.
david@ukma.UUCP (06/11/87)
In article <10332@decwrl.DEC.COM> reid@decwrl.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes: >Gene Spafford talks about alternative groups. I'd like to elaborate on what >he said: >>Alternative sources groups (or alternative *anything* groups) have a >>couple of major distinguishing features that some people seem to be >>overlooking: ... >1) ... >2) Alternative groups are currently forced to be second-class citizens. > The periodic "checkgroup" messages flush them from time to time on > many systems. The mechanisms for moderators do not really support > a moderated alternative group. I've had "alternative" groups here for quite a while. "ky", "uk", amd "ukfa" distributions (alternative groups ... same thing). I've never had checkgroups ask that I flush these groups. That even included the long time when checkgroups was asking me to flush everything. I could also set up any of "my" groups as moderated groups, but have so far lacked the energy to do so. Or do you mean alternative groups who happen to be named under one of the 7 main distribution names. >3) There is no reason why the alternative groups cannot use the same kind > of distribution that the mainstream groups have now: relaying. The > use of PC Pursuit and nntp makes it possible to ship alternative groups > to many places for not much money. There is no need for alternative > networks to be star-shaped, with all news radiating out of a single > hub. There can be alternative backbones just as there is an official > backbone. Therefore people will not be spending more money per byte on > receiving the alternative groups than they will be on receiving official > groups. I agree wholehearedly. I can help out by providing some use of our PC-Pursuit and NNTP connection capabilities... -- ----- David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET, david@ms.uky.csnet ----- (also "postmaster", "news", and the Usenet map maintainer for Kentucky.) ----- bsmtp-users@ms.uky.csnet for bsmtp discussion ----- bsmtp-users-request@ms.uky.csnet for administrivia