webber@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?].