emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (01/09/90)
I am for this only if there in an anonymous FTP site associated with the binaries group, on the principle that you shouldn't be slinging binaries around to the world if you can avoid it. An mail-based archive server should be attached to it too. I will vote NO if these two requirements are not met and will encourage others to do likewise. The last thing we need is a binaries group without a well-run archive site to back it up.
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (01/09/90)
Why don't we just use comp.binaries.ibm.pc? They are binaries and
they run on a IBM PC (o.k. may it should comp.binaries.ibm.ps2 :-).
If comp.binaries.os2 is created then I recommend that comp.binaries.ibm.pc
be renamed to comp.binaries.dos (I know that there are OS named DOS other
than MSDOS/PCDOS so maybe it should be comp.binaries.msdos and likewise
comp.binaries.msos2). Otherwise just use comp.binaries.ibm.pc for
OS/2 binaries too.
--
Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com
35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy
Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519/884-2270 FAX: 519/884-8861randall@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Randall Atkinson) (01/10/90)
In article <EMV.90Jan9023337@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > >I am for this only if there in an anonymous FTP site associated >with the binaries group, on the principle that you shouldn't >be slinging binaries around to the world if you can avoid it. >An mail-based archive server should be attached to it too. > >I will vote NO if these two requirements are not met and will >encourage others to do likewise. The last thing we need is >a binaries group without a well-run archive site to back it up. I also believe that there should be an anonymous FTP site. It is something to be addressed once a suitable moderator is found. Even if there isn't one, the group should be created so that folks who don't want to carry binary traffic but do want to carry comp.os.os2 will be able to do so. The reason that comp.os.os2 has been so expensive of late is the high percentage of binary traffic. If it is separated, then people can at least have the ability to manage things according to the needs of that site. Not creating comp.binaries.os2 will not reduce the amount of binaries "slung around" it will only keep them in comp.os.os2 where they are already a problem. It still needs a moderator too.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/10/90)
In article <1990Jan9.154132.9895@mks.com> andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) writes: | If comp.binaries.os2 is created then I recommend that comp.binaries.ibm.pc | be renamed to comp.binaries.dos (I know that there are OS named DOS other This is a very good idea. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (01/12/90)
In article <1990Jan9.154132.9895@mks.com>, andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) writes: > > Why don't we just use comp.binaries.ibm.pc? They are binaries and > they run on a IBM PC (o.k. may it should comp.binaries.ibm.ps2 :-). > I second that...this is just plain needless. Let's get a grip on redundant over-zealous newsgroup creation. -- Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {attctc,texbell}vector!holston!barton PO Box 1781 | (PSEUDO) DOMAIN: barton@holston.UUCP Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ---------------------------------------- 318-439-5984 | "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"-JC
artk@congrunt.uunet.uu.net (Art Kreitman @ Congruent) (01/12/90)
> There is existing binaries traffic in the comp.os.os2 newsgroup which > has caused that group to be rated as one of the most expensive groups > to carry in Brian Reid's postings and a number of sites are considering > dropping comp.os.os2 because of the binary traffic. Add my YES vote to forming comp.binaries.os2. I'd like to suggest halting further posting of binaries until the voting is completed. Art Kreitman uunet!congrunt!artk Congruent Corp. congrunt!artk@uunet.uu.net 110 Greene Street New York, NY 10012 212-431-5100
herald.usask.ca.UUCP (Kevin &,,4826,6535185) (01/16/90)
From article <5661@holston.UUCP>, by barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk): > In article <1990Jan9.154132.9895@mks.com>, andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) writes: >> >> Why don't we just use comp.binaries.ibm.pc? They are binaries and >> they run on a IBM PC (o.k. may it should comp.binaries.ibm.ps2 :-). > I second that...this is just plain needless. Let's get a grip on > redundant over-zealous newsgroup creation. First, what is wrong with having a separate binaries group? It doesn't cost any more in transmission time, or disk space. If it were separate, then end nodes could choose to not take the OS/2 binaries, but still take the MS-DOS binaries. Lumping them both together would just cause problems. Also, although it is called COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, it has in fact been used as COMP.BINARIES.MSDOS (which is what it should have been called all along). Telling us to put OS/2 binaries there is like telling Macintosh users to put their binaries in the APPLE PRODOS binaries group (if there is such a thing). Next you will tell us that Xenix sources should go there instead of in the Unix sources newsgroup. Preposterous. Finally, in case you haven't noticed, there IS NO COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC group (at least temporarily). The moderator buckled under the pressure (he is over a month behind in postings) and resigned. They are currently looking for a new moderator for the group, and until then nothing is going through. Now lets see ... you are suggesting we add to the problem by including OS/2 binaries on that already overburdened newsgroup. Seems logical to me #8-) One more thing. OS/2 runs on more than just IBM computers. Using your logic, we would then need a COMP.BINARIES.COMPAQ, COMP.BINARIES.TANDY, COMP.BINARIES.DELL, COMP.BINARIES.ZENITH, COMP.BINAR ... ah, you get the picture. - Kevin Lowey @ 1:140/43 - LOWEY@SASK.USask.Ca - ...!alberta!dvinci!lowey
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (01/17/90)
Well after much deliberation and reading others opinions,
I have decided to change my position to favor the creation
of comp.binaries.os2.
My logic was apparently flawed the day that I posted my
article opposing same.
It does seem to provide for better organization. thanks to
all who pointed out my short-sightedness.
--
Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {attctc,texbell}vector!holston!barton
PO Box 1781 | (PSEUDO) DOMAIN: barton@holston.UUCP
Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ----------------------------------------
318-439-5984 | "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"-JC