joe@vixen.uucp (Joe Hitchens) (11/10/89)
tmb@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > I think it is wrong to mix a newsgroup for program sources and tools > with a newsgroup for images. I agree with this. > Furthermore, I fear that USENET doesn't have the bandwidth to transmit > images. This would be an argument for moderation. The moderator could filter out images that are not very good or interesting. But then we have to trust the tastes of the moderator. > So, in summary, a "YES" vote for a source newsgroup devoted to tools > for creating, converting, and manipulating images, and a strong "NO" > against a newsgroup for distributing grey level or color images. How about this for a really keen idea ... 2 newsgroups. One for image conversion, utilities whatever. One for actual images. The "images" group is moderated. Moderator collects all the images, algorithmically shrinks them to a standard 64 x 64 pixel iconized version of the original image and posts THAT. Then if someone gets a tiny pic that looks interesting, they mail the moderator and he sends the ACTUAL image. Does this help the bandwidth problem or would every one get into a mad rush of "mailing for pictures" and end up making the problem worse? I am a computer artist and would really like to distribute some of the things I have done. I like the idea of a "images" newsgroup, but don't really feel qualified to make an intelligent YES or NO vote on the it. I would vote "YES" for the utilities group however. j.h. -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Joe Hitchens -- Artist, Sculptor, Animator of Sculpture, Iconographer Adept joe@vixen ...!uunet!iconsys!caeco!vixen!joe Phone: (801) 292-2190
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (11/14/89)
news.groups's own joe@vixen.UUCP (Joe Hitchens) said:
-tmb@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
-
-> I think it is wrong to mix a newsgroup for program sources and tools
-> with a newsgroup for images.
-
-I agree with this.
Likewise.
-> Furthermore, I fear that USENET doesn't have the bandwidth to transmit
-> images.
-
-This would be an argument for moderation. The moderator could filter
-out images that are not very good or interesting. But then we have
-to trust the tastes of the moderator.
It's the best argument for moderation. Are you volunteering?
-How about this for a really keen idea ...
-
- 2 newsgroups.
- One for image conversion, utilities whatever.
- One for actual images.
How about this. Comp.graphics is used for utilities. Comp.graphics.images
is used for the pretty pictures.
Comp.graphics.images is MODERATED (by someone who isn't me). Everyone lives
happily ever after.
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
The keyboard's been drinking, not me.mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (11/16/89)
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: |news.groups's own joe@vixen.UUCP (Joe Hitchens) said: |-tmb@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: |-> I think it is wrong to mix a newsgroup for program sources and tools |-> with a newsgroup for images. |-I agree with this. |Likewise. Likewise again. |-> Furthermore, I fear that USENET doesn't have the bandwidth to transmit |-> images. Yes. Please appreciate that someone else is paying the phone bill to transmit all these images to thousands of machines. Earlier, someone suggested to simply setup an archive that others can FTP from. This is certainly the most sensible solution, particularly for large images. I appreciate that all sites (although they should) can't FTP. These sites should get a friend (on Internet) to simply e-mail the files directly to them. Also, if these sites simply dialed directly into the archive and used Kermit to download what they wanted, this would be better than posting these sources all over the world. |-How about 2 newsgroups. |- One for image conversion, utilities whatever; one for actual images. |How about this. Comp.graphics is used for utilities. Comp.graphics.images |is used for the pretty pictures. If you're proposing a source group, put "sources" or "binaries" in the group name so everybody knows what it is. Isn't this the obvious thing to do? Something like: comp.binaries.graphics --or-- comp.graphics.binaries A "source" group by any other name would simply be misleading to potential users. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund) (11/17/89)
I have only seen the tail end of this discussion, so I apologize if this question has been previously answered: What sort of compression will be used for these images? Also are there better publicly available compressions that unix COMPRESS (Lempel-Ziv)? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
bio_zwbb@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (William Busa) (11/17/89)
It would seem that the most serious objection to formation of comp.graphics.images is the rather pervasive fear that such a group would simply overwhelm the Net's bandwidth. I share this fear, and therefore at present I oppose formation of this group. Still, it would be nice if we had some data, however crude, on which to base our judgement. Therefore, I suggest that the originator(s) of this proposal post a survey in the relevant newsgroups concerning the level of use such a group would see. I envision questions such as "How often would you post to this group?" "How many images per posting?" "How large?" "What distribution?" Now, one can fault such a survey on any number of grounds, and it would be wrong to take the results as anything but the roughest sketch of users' present estimation of their intentions, but even as such I think it would provide useful information. My primary concern is to know whether such a group would cause a 1% increase in Net traffic, a 10% increase, or 100% or 1000%??? I think a poll would (at best) give us an order-of-magnitude estimate. Statisticians please save your flames; I recognize and readily acknowledge that this poll would have no statistical significance. -- Dr. William Busa, Dept. of Biology, The Johns Hopkins University, Charles & 34th Sts., Baltimore, MD 21218 (301) 338-8207 bio_zwbb@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu uunet!mimsy!jhunix!bio_zwbb