pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (07/02/88)
Since some (many? most?) administrators are unable to carry the entire
traffic load of the net, and probably won't even if we regionalize the
discussion groups, I'd like to make a suggestion that will help sift the
wheat from the chaff:
One useful way to categorize program postings is along 'useful as programmer
or administration tools' vs. 'useful for endusers, or as examples for
programmers'.
Category I programs are presumably things that technical net-readers would/
could use as part of their professional work. Anything placed in a category
I group should be something that enhances the image of UseNet as a useful
business tool, an asset to any computer-oriented company's business [or
alternately, postings should at least not detract from that image].
Category II programs are things that are educational, fun, of use to
end-users (non-programmer/administrators), etc. Games would automatically
go in this category, of course. All source code is potentially useful as
an educational tool for a programmer, and any runnable program at all,
binary *or* source, is potentially useful as an education in user interface...
but that leaves us with no distinction. If it doesn't fit in Category I,
it goes in category II.
The decision on which programs go in which category would be left in the
capable hands of the esteemed moderators.
I leave the naming mess as an exercise for the net, although perhaps
a straw-person would help:
comp.techsrc.* Source code postings of immediate use to technical
people.
comp.othersrc.* Other source code postings.
comp.techbin.* Binary postings of immediate use to technical
people.
comp.otherbin.* Other binary postings.
Note that I said 'postings', not 'programs'. This allows space for things
such as binary bitmap postings in the future :-) :-)! [If you seriously
want to discuss this tangent, change the subject line, please!]
Pete
--
OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (07/04/88)
In article <275@octopus.UUCP>, pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: > Since some (many? most?) administrators are unable to carry the entire Actually, this is a matter of definitions. To me, anyone who doesn't carry all the groups isn't a news administrator -- they are just a user with a computer. On the other hand, you could say nearly no one can afford to carry the whole net and then point at all the IBM 360/s and PS/2s where it isn't available. Or all the sites where a handful of newsgroups reach via mailing list gateways could be used as examples of ``partial'' feeds. > I group should be something that enhances the image of UseNet as a useful > business tool, an asset to any computer-oriented company's business [or > alternately, postings should at least not detract from that image]. Nah. Such detracts from the image of the net. Turns it into just another business. A major theme throughout the entire history of the net has been to minimize its business aspects. There are many reasons for this, one of the major ones being that any increase in ``official'' visability means an increase in exposure to lawyers and such. If you want a business-oriented net take it to biz.* They are dying from lack of interest over there and could use the help. It is really silly to try and increase this sort of thing inside of the real net when biz.* stands as such a symbol of failure for such attempts. Make it work out and show us that such an approach is better than what we got -- like the alt.* people did (of course, now they have the problem of what to do once you succeed). > The decision on which programs go in which category would be left in the > capable hands of the esteemed moderators. Sounds good to me. Let's go out and steam some moderators. > Note that I said 'postings', not 'programs'. This allows space for things > such as binary bitmap postings in the future :-) :-)! [If you seriously > want to discuss this tangent, change the subject line, please!] Yeah. Heaven forbid that in tracking the followup to your suggestion you should have to read opinions by others on subjects that you are not interested in but couldn't help commenting on. By the way, bitmaps ARE NOT BINARIES. Bitmaps are source. They are perfectly readable and usable on any hardware as is. Look at the X bitmap format sometime -- indistinquishable from C declarations. The different bitmap formats are compression formats, NOT compilation outputs. All are easily invertable retaining all the information present in the original. --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) followups to news.misc [empty groups are the best place to start new trains of thought]. this message was crossposted there so that they would know what was coming [can't you hear them shivering in their boots?].