jad@lanl.ARPA (John De Vries) (06/03/86)
<> I think that Chuq's recent experience with net.sources.mac points out how useful this group is, even though it is one of the higher volume groups. Not only does it enjoy relatively high readership (viz. the arbitron results), but people are actually using (read: downloading) the material posted to it. That 72 people would respond to the problem Chuq posed in much less than a week is amazing. One might even consider it 72 votes FOR the continuation of net. sources.mac in the future news hierarchy (whatever that may end up being.) Zozzles The Freep Mac Librarian, La Manzana Macintosh Club (ihnp4 or cmcl2)!lanl!jad or jad@lanl.ARPA
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (06/04/86)
In article <3808@lanl.ARPA> jad@a.UUCP (John De Vries) writes: >One might even consider it 72 votes FOR the continuation of net. >sources.mac in the future news hierarchy (whatever that may end >up being.) Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. The idea of keeping both groups around for awhile is to give us a chance to work out any problems with the moderated group. If you folks won't use it, then the cutover will have to come cold turkey. The moderator is Roger Long, hplabs!felix!macintosh is the appropriate address to send submissions to. Come on, folks, use the new group. Mark
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/05/86)
> In article <3808@lanl.ARPA> jad@a.UUCP (John De Vries) writes: > >One might even consider it 72 votes FOR the continuation of net. > >sources.mac in the future news hierarchy (whatever that may end > >up being.) > > [Mark Horton] > Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with > mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, > but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. The idea of keeping both > groups around for awhile is to give us a chance to work out any > problems with the moderated group. If you folks won't use it, then the > cutover will have to come cold turkey. > > The moderator is Roger Long, hplabs!felix!macintosh is the appropriate > address to send submissions to. Come on, folks, use the new group. Only mod.mac.binaries exists on my machine. It's had exactly one program (to do the Amiga bouncing ball demo). No sources group. I'll use the new groups IF they work. Do they? -- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- | Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings | toward the south? Job 39:26
ztf@lanl.ARPA (Zozzles The Freep) (06/05/86)
A Slight Flame. In article <2201@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > >Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with >mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, >but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. >{etc.} > Mark Amazing. I've been following both net.news and net.news.group for about five months and I've seen only a little discussion about this and never had read this particular solution. But that is not my flame. The thing that riles me is that our site apparently only got the newgroup message for these (and a bunch of other moderated groups) within the last twenty-four hours. Praytell, how can this have only happened here recently when you state that these groups "already exist" as if they HAVE existed for some time and that everyone ought to know about them??? More than that, how could (for example) I have generated any traffic in a group of whose existence I was previously unaware? If there is a simple explanation for this, I will humbly accept correction. ZtF
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/06/86)
> In article <2201@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > > > >Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with > >mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, > >but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. > >{etc.} > > Mark > > Amazing. I've been following both net.news and net.news.group for > about five months and I've seen only a little discussion about this > and never had read this particular solution. But that is not my flame. > > The thing that riles me is that our site apparently only got the > newgroup message for these (and a bunch of other moderated groups) > within the last twenty-four hours. Praytell, how can this have only > happened here recently when you state that these groups "already > exist" as if they HAVE existed for some time and that everyone ought > to know about them??? More than that, how could (for example) I have > generated any traffic in a group of whose existence I was previously > unaware? Well, let's find out what the general distribution of these groups is. What does your site have? We have: net.sources.mac net.micro.mac mod.mac mod.mac.binaries We don't have: mod.mac.sources Anybody else missing any mod groups? How widespread is this problem? -- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- | Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings | toward the south? Job 39:26