scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) (12/04/90)
I am in the process of pulling together a consensus on the removal of the unix-pc.* groups. This action will of course depend on the outcome of the vote for creation of comp.*.3b1. If you are a feed site for unix-pc.*, please contact me for inclusion on the mailing list. My criteria for a feed site is that you pay for one of more long-distance links out of your own or immediate corporate pocket, or that you feed unix-pc to multiple sites either locally or via NNTP. This list will coordinate the removal of the unix-pc.* hierarchy. We will also discuss the changeover of current unix-pc.* network links to carry the new comp.*.3b1 groups. -- Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott 10122 Amador Oak Ct.| +1 408 253 6767 |Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Cupertino, CA 95014|Love make, not more|for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78/86 login newuser password public
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/06/90)
In article <1990Dec4.050336.1654@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: |I am in the process of pulling together a consensus on the removal of the |unix-pc.* groups. This action will of course depend on the outcome of the |vote for creation of comp.*.3b1. If you are a feed site for unix-pc.*, |please contact me for inclusion on the mailing list. My criteria for a |feed site is that you pay for one of more long-distance links out of your |own or immediate corporate pocket, or that you feed unix-pc to multiple sites |either locally or via NNTP. | |This list will coordinate the removal of the unix-pc.* hierarchy. We will |also discuss the changeover of current unix-pc.* network links to carry the |new comp.*.3b1 groups. I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend this to everyone on general principles. I feed unix-pc to a number of sites and will continue to do so... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "Making the world safe for demography" - Western Culture (tm) Yoghurt
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/08/90)
According to bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker): > I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever > the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding > unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend > this to everyone on general principles. Before anyone takes Mr. Becker seriously, remember that he also "adamantly protested" the rmgroup of alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. For some reason, the phrase "Consider the source" comes to mind. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "What's that thing, when people die, they take apart the body to see why?" -- St. Theresa of the Net
kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (12/08/90)
In article <58455@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > In article <1990Dec4.050336.1654@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: > |I am in the process of pulling together a consensus on the removal of the > |unix-pc.* groups. This action will of course depend on the outcome of the > |vote for creation of comp.*.3b1. > | > |This list will coordinate the removal of the unix-pc.* hierarchy. We will > |also discuss the changeover of current unix-pc.* network links to carry the > |new comp.*.3b1 groups. > > I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever > the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding > unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend > this to everyone on general principles. > > I feed unix-pc to a number of sites and will > continue to do so... Well, if the name change occurs, most of us plan on just changing our "sys" file, I'll just be changing the name of the groups I'll forward, and maybe eventually turn some more of them to ihave/sendme. I'm hoping that my local feeds become reliable to the point that I can reduce the number of alternate feeds I use. If the reorg fails, I'm going to ADD some links, and see if I can help connect remote branches. Nobody's planning on not sending the articles, but we are planning on nukeing the old names. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 { uunet | rutgers | att }!westmark!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com
mccarty@aaet.csc.ti.com (Rick McCarty) (12/09/90)
In article <27601FD3.6C20@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker): >> I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever >> the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding >> unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend >> this to everyone on general principles. > >Before anyone takes Mr. Becker seriously, remember that he also >"adamantly protested" the rmgroup of alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. > >For some reason, the phrase "Consider the source" comes to mind. >-- [Mr. Becker, please do not take the following as a flame - this is intended to be constructive in nature - i.e. I'm not sitting here spewing steam or anything.] [I post this because I think Mr. Becker is not the only one who needs to hear this. Just whoooooo could that/they be, you ask? ;-)] I guess I do take Mr. Becker seriously in one sense. His approach makes things go less smoothly than they could. Bruce's attitude is representative of the inherent problem in causing groups to actually go away despite rmgroup'ing. I wish we had a purely technical solution to the problem, but we don't. We must rely on cooperation. It would be better if Bruce would simply "get with theprogram" and be willing to abide by the "wave of opinion", even if it is not consistent with the view he holds. To Bruce/others sharing his view: You must be willing to take the losses with the wins. Argue your side the best you can - but STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT. Please don't inject such "If I lose I won't play anymore" phrases into things. It is detrimental to the argument(s) on both sides, as it takes focus off the subject at hand and moves the parties into "dig the heels in" mode. We then run the risk of making poorer decisions, because it becomes "us vs. them" instead of "is it the right thing to do?". As long as your inputs are percieved as constructive in intent, they are valuable and deserve consideration. Please do your best to make them so. I'm sure you have (and will have) many ideas that are of value to us all. It would be a shame to see them ignored. Believe you me, I'm Mr. Argument if you ever ran into him. I'll fight for my position VERY strongly at times. But when it's over, I know (I hope) how to live with it and move on. And I (try to) never take it personally (this is a key lesson in life, I think!). [Whoops! For a second there, I was drifting back into Philosophy 101 mode. Better quit before I drift too far! :-)] Rick =========================================================================== Rick McCarty 12501 Research Boulevard Texas Instruments Incorporated P.O. Box 149149, MS 2227 Information Technology Group Austin, Texas 78714-9149 mccarty@aaet.csc.ti.com (512) 250-4108 ===========================================================================
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/12/90)
In article <27601FD3.6C20@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: |According to bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker): |> I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever |> the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding |> unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend |> this to everyone on general principles. | |Before anyone takes Mr. Becker seriously, remember that he also |"adamantly protested" the rmgroup of alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. | |For some reason, the phrase "Consider the source" comes to mind. ...and if you actually did so, you'd discover that the motivations in the 2 cases were entirely distinct. Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "Any closer and you'd be in the way" - ad for TV news program
craig@attcan.UUCP (Craig Campbell) (12/13/90)
In article <60082@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > Please don't send me any more of yer > scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | - Oh, come on Bruce!!! Now yer just TEASING the rest of the net!!! Any JUICY details??!?!? (We LOVE anything scandalous!!) >-- > ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario >a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu > `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb > _< /_ "Any closer and you'd be in the way" - ad for TV news program craig "This opinion is a bargain at twice what YOU'RE paying for it!!!"
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/13/90)
According to craig@vpk3.ATT.COM (Craig Campbell): >In article <60082@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > >> Please don't send me any more of yer >> scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | > - Oh, come on Bruce!!! Now yer just TEASING the rest of the net!!! > Any JUICY details??!?!? > (We LOVE anything scandalous!!) I'll never tell. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec9.021006.1336@axis.dsg.ti.com> mccarty@aaet.csc.ti.com (Rick McCarty) writes: |In article <27601FD3.6C20@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: |>According to bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker): |>> I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever |>> the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding |>> unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend |>> this to everyone on general principles. |> |>Before anyone takes Mr. Becker seriously, remember that he also |>"adamantly protested" the rmgroup of alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. |> |>For some reason, the phrase "Consider the source" comes to mind. |>-- | |[Mr. Becker, please do not take the following as a flame - this is intended to |be constructive in nature - i.e. I'm not sitting here spewing steam or |anything.] | |[I post this because I think Mr. Becker is not the only one who needs to hear |this. Just whoooooo could that/they be, you ask? ;-)] | |I guess I do take Mr. Becker seriously in one sense. His approach makes |things go less smoothly than they could. | |Bruce's attitude is representative of the inherent problem in causing groups |to actually go away despite rmgroup'ing. I wish we had a purely technical |solution to the problem, but we don't. We must rely on cooperation. It would |be better if Bruce would simply "get with theprogram" and be willing to abide |by the "wave of opinion", even if it is not consistent with the view he holds. | |To Bruce/others sharing his view: | |You must be willing to take the losses with the wins. Argue your side the |best you can - but STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT. Please don't inject such "If I |lose I won't play anymore" phrases into things. It is detrimental to the |argument(s) on both sides, as it takes focus off the subject at hand and moves |the parties into "dig the heels in" mode. We then run the risk of making |poorer decisions, because it becomes "us vs. them" instead of "is it the right |thing to do?". | |As long as your inputs are percieved as constructive in intent, they are |valuable and deserve consideration. Please do your best to make them so. |I'm sure you have (and will have) many ideas that are of value to us all. |It would be a shame to see them ignored. | |Believe you me, I'm Mr. Argument if you ever ran into him. I'll fight for my |position VERY strongly at times. But when it's over, I know (I hope) how to |live with it and move on. And I (try to) never take it personally (this is a |key lesson in life, I think!). Hmmmm. I *think* the above is drivel, but... hmmmm... I made the statement quoted above in order to focus on some real problems about this whole proposal. There have always been propagation problems with unix-pc, but no-one tried enough to do very much. I've pointed out the fact that much of the problem seems relatively easily fixed, but the herd is stampeding... It seems to me that when the dust clears that some serious disadvantages will show themselves, and that hindsight will quite possibly prove painful for some of the rip-snorters leading the fray currently. Or perhaps not, I may be merely over-cautious here. The problem seems to be that the unix-pc will gradually become obsolete even to many of its staunchest current supporters, even myself at some time. Already folks like Gil have caused a stir by announcing that he's selling off his machines. Although that Mike person certainly was obnxious in his attacks, I consider it important that so much stir was created - it appears to indicate possible wider problems in the unix-pc situation. I don't think going to hide in comp. will solve anything - rather it would merely provide a context for the stuff of the unix-pc hierarchy to be absorbed and dissipated. Or, again, perhaps it might prosper and someone could say how silly it was to have worried - that would be nice, but I'm also pretty sure that not nearly enough has been done with the current unix-pc groups to ensure their continuing success, so how confident can we be that this new endeavor will suddenly become somehow better? Before someone starts mumbling about negativity or something, I'd like to point out that the unix-pc phenomenon has been remarkable in some very important ways, perhaps uniquely. In being able to support at a very high and progressive level an obsoleted machine, a standard has been set which can be applied in many other contexts. This has such value that it ought to endure beyond the life of the system which it started with. Perhap the move to comp. has this possibility, but it needs to be made more explicit or its importance may be forgotten, which would be tragic... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "Any closer and you'd be in the way" - ad for TV news program
mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) (12/15/90)
In article <60752@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > > ... I'd like to point out that the > unix-pc phenomenon has been remarkable in some > very important ways, perhaps uniquely. In being > able to support at a very high and progressive > level an obsoleted machine, a standard has been > set which can be applied in many other contexts. > This has such value that it ought to endure beyond > the life of the system which it started with. > Perhap the move to comp. has this possibility, > but it needs to be made more explicit or its > importance may be forgotten, which would be > tragic... > Mr. Becker has done it again - written something I can agree with :-) I think that part of what's bothering him, and a few others (myself included), is the assumption that the creation of a new unix-pc group in the comp hierarchy can automatically be linked to a removal of the unix-pc.* groups. This network was not created via the mainstream group creation procedure. It was built one link at a time, and it'll probably have to come apart the same way. If and when the new group is established is the time to start local (unix-pc only) discussions about removal of the old groups. For myself, I suspect I will continue to accept postings in the unix-pc hierarchy for a quite some time to come. I think we need to make sure that the spirit gets transferred to the new group, not just the traffic. Oh, yeah - Don't forget to vote. I haven't yet, but I will. -- Mark H. Weber ( mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org ) "Schuylkill" (skool' kill) Mont Clare ( ...!uunet!cbmvax!cgh!lock60!mhw ) is a Dutch word meaning PA USA ( ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw ) "hidden river"
templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (12/16/90)
In article <60752@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > The problem seems to be that the unix-pc will > gradually become obsolete even to many of its [...] > I don't think going to hide in comp. will solve > anything - rather it would merely provide a context > for the stuff of the unix-pc hierarchy to be I thought the reason for the move to comp was to solve the problem with the group distribution completeness (for sites that do get the group) and to make people at sites that refuse to carry alternate groups have access to the 'UNIXPC' discussion. True enough these people might be able to get the groups if they were willing to spend the bucks on long-distance phone calls, but why not make it more convenient? I don't think anybody thought they would 'save' the machine from obsolesence by putting its newsgroup in comp. > or something, I'd like to point out that the > unix-pc phenomenon has been remarkable in some > very important ways, perhaps uniquely. In being > able to support at a very high and progressive > level an obsoleted machine, a standard has been > set which can be applied in many other contexts. > This has such value that it ought to endure beyond > the life of the system which it started with. > Perhap the move to comp. has this possibility, > but it needs to be made more explicit or its > importance may be forgotten, which would be > tragic... I think what you are trying to say here (correct me please if I am wrong!!) is that having our own hierarchy is making the group stronger. This might be true. I think it has to be weighed against the added strength that comes from having more people in the club. Check out discussions on comp.sys.nsc.32k if you want an example of a tight-knit, high-standards group of people dedicated to a machine (at least this was the case 6 months ago) in the comp hierarchy. Jeff
kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (12/16/90)
In article <60752@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > > I made the statement quoted above in order to > focus on some real problems about this whole > proposal. There have always been propagation > problems with unix-pc, but no-one tried enough > to do very much. I've pointed out the fact that > much of the problem seems relatively easily fixed, > but the herd is stampeding... > . . . > I'm also pretty sure that not nearly enough has > been done with the current unix-pc groups to > ensure their continuing success, so how confident > can we be that this new endeavor will suddenly > become somehow better? > -- > Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario > Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu > UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb > Well, some of my least-responded messages have been suggestions for investigating these problems. I don't know whether it's lack of interest, or poor presentation, or poor distribution, or what, but the last time I said I'd like to check to see what and where articles were getting dropped, I got ONE (one) response. I'm currently thinking about bi-weekly ihave-sendme connections with various sites to try to solve dropped article problems, and have contacted several sites about this. However, most of these sites are well-connected to sites that are already well-connected to me. I'm worried that this will increase my phone bills without solving anybody's problems. To fix unix-pc distribution problems, we almost need something like a "mini-backbone" subset, guarenteeing that unix-pc articles reaching one of the machines WILL reach the other machines, and not using att, uunet, or the internet. (providing a complete and fully redundant path) I know that an awful lot of my unix-pc news goes through att (I posted an article about this, but saw no followups and got no replies) Well, the att gateway was suddenly "down", this week, and the resulting flood after it was fixed filled disks from some of MY feeds, so articles got dropped. I only carry a small number of newsgroups, and hold articles for a long time, so the volume wasn't a problem for me. But I hope I built enough redundancy into my connections to handle losses in the groups I do care about. Anyhow, maybe the comp.sys...3b1 reorganization will fix this. I know I don't feel I've made much progress working on it privately. Meanwhile, if anybody has further comments on this, I know I'd like to hear them. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 { uunet | rutgers | att }!westmark!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com
kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (12/18/90)
In article <608@lock60.UUCP>, mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) writes: . . . > I think that part of what's bothering him, and a few others (myself > included), is the assumption that the creation of a new unix-pc group > in the comp hierarchy can automatically be linked to a removal of > the unix-pc.* groups. This network was not created via the mainstream > group creation procedure. It was built one link at a time, and it'll > probably have to come apart the same way. If and when the new group > is established is the time to start local (unix-pc only) discussions > about removal of the old groups. For myself, I suspect I will continue > to accept postings in the unix-pc hierarchy for a quite some time to > come. I think we need to make sure that the spirit gets transferred > to the new group, not just the traffic. > > -- > Mark H. Weber ( mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org ) "Schuylkill" (skool' kill) I think that unix-pc will be a problem when it becomes a "ghost" - sites that don't upgrade their sys file automaticly, or regularly, will list the group as still existing, people will post to it, and wonder why there's so little followup. I know I've posted to groups that didn't make it out of my machine's local group, (to groups that did make it in), and it was an extremely frustrating experience before I figured out what was happening. We have this in unix-pc now, in some places. If we kill unix-pc, we should all work real hard to keep it dead. One labor-intensive, (but effective?) step we could do would be to change unix-pc groups to be moderated, the moderator puts appropriate messages into the new group, and send an email message to each poster explaining the change. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 { uunet | rutgers | att }!westmark!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/19/90)
In article <552@hico2.UUCP> kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) writes: |[...] |To fix unix-pc distribution problems, we almost need |something like a "mini-backbone" subset, guarenteeing |that unix-pc articles reaching one of the machines WILL |reach the other machines, and not using att, uunet, or the |internet. (providing a complete and fully redundant path) Recently I created a point-to-point news distribution system which uses email to send news batches and which injects them into news at destination. Because the mail system is the delivery agent, primary and secondary mailing lists can achieve effective long-distance propagation to bridge over usenet gaps. Any mailer system with a "pipe" function such as sendmail or the patched version of smail2.5 will work fine at the receiving end. The news batches are encoded in a manner similar to, but more efficient than, uuencoded files. Optional simple password encryption is provided for those as needs it... If such a system proves handy I can make it available. Currently it runs on several platforms besides the 3B1 (SysVr4, 4.3BSD), and I'll soon have it working on Amiga UUCP as well... Cheers, -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "Any closer and you'd be in the way" - ad for TV news program
vote@bagend.uucp (vote taker) (12/20/90)
mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) writes: >Mr. Becker has done it again - written something I can agree with :-) >I think that part of what's bothering him, and a few others (myself >included), is the assumption that the creation of a new unix-pc group >in the comp hierarchy can automatically be linked to a removal of >the unix-pc.* groups. This network was not created via the mainstream >group creation procedure. It was built one link at a time, and it'll >probably have to come apart the same way. If and when the new group >is established is the time to start local (unix-pc only) discussions >about removal of the old groups. For myself, I suspect I will continue >to accept postings in the unix-pc hierarchy for a quite some time to >come. I think we need to make sure that the spirit gets transferred >to the new group, not just the traffic. The proposal clearly stated that if the new groups were created, they were to replace the existing unix-pc hierarchy over a 3 month period. After said 3 months, A request for Spaff to remove them from his alternate hierarchy postings. This is what we are voting on. I think you will find that the system administrators out there that get the news moved around usually follow the results of votes like this. The quickest way I can think of to get both the vote *and* distribution of the unix-pc hierarchy dumped by these fine people is for alot more people to jump on Mr. Becker's raging bandwagon. >Oh, yeah - Don't forget to vote. I haven't yet, but I will. Yes, do not forget to vote. -- Jan Isley jan@bagend {known universe}!gatech!bagend!jan (404)434-1335