gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (06/27/88)
In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes:
]
] What do we do about .binaries?
Boy, are you ignorant. Not that ignorance is always something to be
ashamed of, but posting ignorant messages to a network is. My reply
is really to the various people who may have been mislead by your
stupid article, so you don't have to read the rest. You have already
proven to my satisfaction that you don't learn from experience.
] Something that would make a big difference would be to completely
] ban SHAREWARE, as it represents 95% of the traffic in the group
] comp.binaries.ibm.pc.
Or we could ban aritlces by you, since they account for 95% of the
stupidity in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. I'm really curious about your
irrational hatred of binaries. Did you have a bad experience with a
binary as a child? Why don't you just stop reading binary groups?
Then you can pretend they don't exist, and they won't bother you at
all.
] There are several reasons why SHAREWARE
] is not desirable ...
] SHAREWARE is commercial software...
]
Lots of people are happy to see these things on the net. Who do you
think you are to tell us what kind of information we are allowed to
post and recieve?
] SHAREWARE quality is frequently low.
Shareware quality is frequently high also. This can be said about
almost any group of products.
] Following every program
] there are floods of postings regarding bugs, and some of the
] programs have been denounced by the net users for problems.
Following some programs there are floods of such postings. The same
can be said of postings in comp.sources.*
] One distributor of SHAREWARE on the net was contacted about
] problems and he got pretty flame-y, saying "If it trashed your
] file system and ate your favorite program, hey, don't use it".
] Clearly, you get what you pay for.
I suppose you are refering to the flushot problem. Why don't we
eliminate every newsgroup that ever contained a flame? The author of
flushot seems a triffle high-spirited, but he was provoked, and you
are misquoting him.
] Unfortunately, SHAREWARE
] has the effect of crowding higher quality software out of
] the market so that there is no viable alternative to it,
] despite the bugs.
Gee, I would be embarassed to make such a stupid, far-reaching,
undocumented statement. It also presupposes your bogus assumption
that shareware is inherently lower quality than other software.
] There is also a considerable amount of re-posting.
You get the same thing in comp.sources.*.
] SHAREWARE is recursive because it uses SHAREWARE archivers.
The vast majority of binaries for PC's use shareware archivers. Just
goes to show how important shareware is.
] The selection of archivers features an old IBM trick of
] "be nasty to the user", by being incompatible.
Choke! New heights of stupidity! I didn't think think it was
possible. Just what dreamworld do you come from where everything is
compatible with everything else? There are a few naive users out
there complaining about a new archiver that unarchives files in a
certain format, but sometimes produces incompatible archives of its
own. This sort of thing happens so frequently, that I can't believe
anyone with any experience at all would complain about it. It's
called evolution, and usually leads to better products.
] ... And yet the user must have
] several to decode the various forms that SHAREWARE can take.
Wrong. The user only needs pkarc.
] The archives have
] been LZW'd before they are sent and they won't compress
] again for news. This puts a 3:1 size factor on the archived
] SHAREWARE as compared to text.
Huh? This topic has been discussed a lot, and the general concencus
seems to be that arc'ed _may_ under some circumstances cause a very
minor (<5%) increase in the size of news batches. Where in the world
did 3:1 come from? And -- you'd better sit down for this -- this
holds for _any_ archived file, not just that evil shareware.
] SHAREWARE frequently only runs on specific hardware, ie. those
] semi-intelligent terminals that IBM calls the PC.
This is no more common for shareware than for other binaries.
] The actual
] number of people who use any particular package is quite
] small, on the order of a few dozen, at best;...
Neat! Statistics by declaration. If you don't know something, make
up a vague number.
] SHAREWARE has carried the dreaded disk disease, the virus, into
] the world on at least one occasion that is known.
Any binaries or sources can carry viruses. If you don't believe that
a source can carry a virus, maybe I ought to prove it to you...
] There is no
] positive way to protest against such nasties as trojans and
] virii except to ban binary executables.
Or, we could take the totally unexpected tact of letting users make up
their own minds what sort of risks they want to take.
] Hopes that a moderator
] would provide some measure of quality assurance have been dashed,
The moderator was never intended to give quality assurance, he was
supposed to keep non-binaries out of the binaries group.
] and SHAREWARE has been given top priority over the cries of
] net users. This is a deliberate commercial distribution at the
] expense of the net being perpetrated by the moderator.
These poor helpless users must be sending their cries directly to you,
because I haven't seen them. Maybe we ought to investigate the
possiblity that the moderator is being paid off by these fortune 500
shareware companies.
] If we're not going to ban SHAREWARE, I want to know because
] I've got a few meg's of stuff that I'll sell. Up till now I've
] thought it improper, so tell me I'm wrong and here it comes.
We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even
though there are some like you who don't want it to be.
] Or how about the complete Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
] (SAO) star catalog?...
Well, you have to be reasonable, but I guess that's asking too much of
some people.russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) (06/27/88)
In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) had suggested that it might be appropriate to ban shareware postings on usenet. In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) took issue with Mr. Brunow's article and posted a truly cleverless diatribe claiming over and over again that Mr. Brunow was "stupid". Mr. Gudeman adamantly concluded: > We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even > though there are some like you who don't want it to be. Mr. Gudeman is wrong, of course. As most people know, it's not a free net... although it would appear from Gudeman's posting that he doesn't contribute to the high cost of its upkeep. And, while it may be true that Mr. Gudeman is not going to ban shareware (how magnanimous of him), it remains to be seen whether shareware (not to mention ibm.binaries) will continue to be propagated through unix sites if net volume continues to increase. Many of us have held legitimate concerns for quite some time that shareware publishers (I can't say whether Mr. Gudeman is included in their number -- although his vehemence suggests that he may have an ax to grind) are taking advantage of the net to promote their products at the expense of others. In view of the groundswell of opinion aimed at putting the net "on a diet" as Chuq proposed several weeks ago, it might be a good idea for readers of comp.binaries.ibm to give some consideration to Mr. Brunow's suggestion. As it is, Mr. Gudeman's advice to "post away" is ill-advised. Now, Mr. Gudeman, go ahead and tell everybody how stupid I am! If you need inspiration, try looking in the mirror. ;-) -- Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 456-0001 {uunet,killer}!wpg!russ
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (06/27/88)
In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: What do we do about .binaries? >Lots of people are happy to see these things on the net. Who do you >think you are to tell us what kind of information we are allowed to >post and recieve? Lots of people don't pay the bills for the massive amount of traffic that all binaries generate.. >These poor helpless users must be sending their cries directly to you, >because I haven't seen them. Maybe we ought to investigate the >possiblity that the moderator is being paid off by these fortune 500 >shareware companies. These poor helpless users you blithely refer to.. are _backbone_ admins who are getting tired of feeding megs and megs of binaries that only benefit a small percentage of the net.whole .. If I may suggest that you read news.admin once in awhile,you would see the discussion frequently. >We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even >though there are some like you who don't want it to be. Who is "we",might I ask.. It is not a free net.. It is quite expensive for the backbone,and well connected sub-backbone sites. It is expensive for the owner of the site you post from. It may be free for you,since you might not be paying for the equipment,long distance,etc,etc.. (notice I say might,since I don't know you) When all is said and done,the suggestion that a new newsgroup heirarchy called "bin" be created to handle binary traffic is probably the best way out. This way,sites that want/need these things can get them.The sites that have no use for them don't get swamped.Connectivity may get shot to hell,but then again,it is doubtful since there will probably sites that will be glad to provide bin.* feeds .. >Well, you have to be reasonable, but I guess that's asking too much of >some people. That is what the net.whole is asking.. Be reasonable about binaries.. Have some consideration on the budgets of the backbone,so that the people that pay the money will stay on the net.What do you think drove AT&T to do what was done.. Megs and Megs of binaries being sent via uucp mail.. I have one question.. If "binaries" are so important for you, can't you just get them from a local bbs somewhere? With the advent of pc pursuit,surely this is not a problem.. Usenet is *not* a bbs,and was never intended to be one.. I expect some major changes will come about soon,and binaries will soon be a memory. When the "bin" distribution is created,and binaries (of all kinds) removed,the amount of traffic (netwide) will probably drop by 30% (based on my observations at three sites I administrate). Surely this is an intelligent thing to do.. The net will still carry all the technical discussions that have become important to micro users everywhere. Is it possible that you haven't thought of what it takes to distribute this stuff worldwide? When the "bin" heirarchy is created,my site will be glad to feed IBM binaries to other sites.. (I use them too.) PS .. personal attacks get you _nowhere_ .. -- Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!len
hwfe@ur-tut (Harlan Feinstein) (06/27/88)
In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: >] SHAREWARE has carried the dreaded disk disease, the virus, into >] the world on at least one occasion that is known. >Any binaries or sources can carry viruses. If you don't believe that >a source can carry a virus, maybe I ought to prove it to you... >] There is no >] positive way to protest against such nasties as trojans and >] virii except to ban binary executables. >Or, we could take the totally unexpected tact of letting users make up >their own minds what sort of risks they want to take. Chuck, I'll admit that I'm pretty inexperienced in flaming, but here goes: The points in your article <1128@csccat.UUCP> are some of the dumbest I've heard in a long while. I think that the parts I like best, along with David Gudeman's reactions to them, are the pearls of your article. Why don't we ban computers, since viruses run on computers; I mean, after all, viruses can't do anything when the computer is off (or can they?). Why don't you not use your computer? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ People can get viruses. Boycott humans. Harlan Feinstein U U RRRR hwfeccss@uorvm.bitnet Student, University of Rochester U U RRRR hwfe@tut.cc.rochester.edu "We are... U R!" UUUU R R seismo!rochester!ur-tut!hwfe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (06/28/88)
In article <463@wpg.UUCP> russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) writes: >In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) had >suggested that it might be appropriate to ban shareware postings >on usenet. > >In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David >Gudeman) took issue with Mr. Brunow's article and posted a truly >cleverless diatribe claiming over and over again that Mr. Brunow >was "stupid". > >Mr. Gudeman adamantly concluded: > >> We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even >> though there are some like you who don't want it to be. > >Mr. Gudeman is wrong, of course. As most people know, it's not a free >net... although it would appear from Gudeman's posting that he doesn't >contribute to the high cost of its upkeep. It was obvious from my wording that I was using "free" in the sense of "unconstrained", not "without cost". I also knew when I wrote it that some people would deliberately misread it. You are right, by the way, I don't pay any of the net costs, except through taxes. If I did, I might not carry binaries or any of the talk groups, and possibly not a lot of the technical groups. If someone wants to cut off binaries because they are costing that person money, I not only wouldn't protest, I wouldn't feel it was any of my business. What _I_ don't like is someone who spends his time trying to talk others into not carrying binaries. It's none of his business. > And, while it may be true >that Mr. Gudeman is not going to ban shareware (how magnanimous of him), >it remains to be seen whether shareware (not to mention ibm.binaries) >will continue to be propagated through unix sites if net volume continues >to increase. I suspect they will drop a lot of other things first. >Many of us have held legitimate concerns for quite some time that >shareware publishers (I can't say whether Mr. Gudeman is included in >their number -- although his vehemence suggests that he may have an ax >to grind) are taking advantage of the net to promote their products >at the expense of others. I'm not a shareware publisher. I _have_ written and distributed some public domain sources. I don't actually like the shareware idea much, but I like freedom. And I don't like busybodies trying to restrict my freedom. _That_ is the axe I have to grind. And shareware publishers are not using the net just to promote their products, but to distribute them. A lot of us are glad to see them. PICNIX has made MSDOS usable for me. >... Now, Mr. Gudeman, go ahead and tell everybody how stupid I am! >If you need inspiration, try looking in the mirror. ;-) Sheesh. Talk about cleverless. I actually, I've been told I look quite intelligent (high forehead, beard, glasses :-). Anyway, I don't call people stupid until they prove it to my satisfaction. If you read the article by Brunnow and know anything about shareware and binaries, you will have to agree that his article was at least not very well thought out. Rereading my response to Brunow in the cooler light of morning, I'll admit it was a little harsh. But when the same person keeps publishing the same misinformation, I get a little irritated. I also would like to know why the guy hates binaries so much. If they are costing Chuck Brunow money why doesn't he just stop carrying binaries and shutup?
carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) (06/29/88)
In article <6018@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: [a fairly calm and clearly-reasoned response to a flame by a binary-hater, then:] > But when the same person keeps >publishing the same misinformation, I get a little irritated. I also >would like to know why the guy hates binaries so much. If they are >costing Chuck Brunow money why doesn't he just stop carrying binaries >and shutup? Amen. Mr. Brunow's ravings against binaries and shareware haven't taken up as much bandwidth as binaries themselves have (although with the dribble lately in c.b.i.p, it's getting close), but he's surely more irritating. Reminds me of political theory as a whole. Mr. Brunow represents the side that wants (net)society to enforce some rules on everybody "for their own good and for the good of society", while Mr. Gudeman (and myself, and many others) would rather let (net)society "vote with their feet". If you don't want binaries - DON'T GET BINARIES and DON'T FEED BINARIES DOWNSTREAM. I'm confident that there will be enough sites still carrying binaries that everyone who wants them can still get them. This newsgroup does not need endless political diatribes against them. The business about a separate hierarchy for binaries (while not objectionable to me) is a red herring. A news administrator can cut off any specific newsgroup not desired. It might take five minutes to run 'sed' on the active file to find out which groups have "binar" in the name and intelligently edit that information. I was willing to ignore the first couple tirades against net.binaries, but Mr. Brunow is SOOO persistent... -- Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"I met a girl who sang the blues | and asked her for some happy news UUCP: carlp@iscuvc.ISCS.COM | but she just smiled and turned away" ...uunet!iscuvc!carlp | - Don MacLean
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (07/01/88)
In article <1671@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: > I was willing to ignore the first couple tirades against net.binaries, but > Mr. Brunow is SOOO persistent... > -- > Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"I met a girl who sang the blues and should chuck ever get tired of preaching the faith, you'll have me to deal with. i think chuck is more liberal than i am. last time i checked he only wanted to scrap shareware. i'd rather see them all go. - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :SMAILERS "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (07/09/88)
In article <8749@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >... Usenet is *not* a bbs,and was never intended to be one... I've seen that line before, and can't help wondering what prompts it. Is there a feeling that binaries readers are mostly PC sites that just use the net to get binaries? If this is the case, it seems like a good reason for a site to get rid of binaries, but I doubt that the binaries readership really looks like that. I suspect that most binaries group readers work on a more "normal" site, and use binaries from the net on their home computers. >...When all is said and done,the suggestion that a new newsgroup heirarchy >called "bin" be created to handle binary traffic is probably the best way >out. This way,sites that want/need these things can get them... Maybe I'm missing something really fundamental here. Why can't the sites that don't want binaries just stop carrying them right now? Is there some technical reason? This seems like the obvious approach, but if it isn't possible why don't you save us a lot of trouble by explaining why it isn't. >... When the "bin" distribution is created,and binaries (of all >kinds) removed,the amount of traffic (netwide) will probably drop by >30% (based on my observations at three sites I administrate)... If that's true, it's another good reason to drop binaries groups at sites that don't want them. 30% seems pretty high though. Have these measurments been done since comp.binaries.ibm.pc became moderated? And when you make such a decision for your site, you really should compare the volume to the readership, not use volume as an absolute measure. >Surely this is an intelligent thing to do.. The net will still >carry all the technical discussions that have become important >to micro users everywhere. Will it also carry rec.* , soc.* , and talk.* ? What I don't understand is the reason for keeping these enterainment groups around while killing a productive group like binaries. Not that I have anything against the entertainment groups, I read a couple of them. But I get the impression that the hostility towards binaries is motivated by either (1) an attempt to save other groups at the expense of binaries, or (2) a personal opinion that binaries are a poor way to distribute software (I agree), associated with an urge to force ones own opinions on others (I disagree). >PS .. personal attacks get you _nowhere_ .. OK, OK. I regret the tone of that article. The keyboard serves as a de-humanizing influence in communication, and I was thinking of Mr. Brunow as an irritation rather than as a human being. I will be more thoughtful in the future. I reiterate though, that the article in question was full of inaccuracies and unsupported generalities. (For support of the previous generality, see the my reply and read around the hostility).
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (07/13/88)
In article <1444@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: > Thank you, David, I'll accept that explanation and, in the > same spirit, make the following small announcement: > > The discussions have convinced me that .binaries have earned > their place on the net... (Boy, this ruined my whole morning. My concience was going to let me get by with only an "explanation", and not the public apology that was really required, until Mr. Brunow went and got noble. Nuts.) Mr. Brunow, I apologize for the uncalled-for insults I posted. David Gudeman (That hurt just as much as I thought it would, but I had it comming.) gudeman@arizona.edu {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (07/18/88)
David Gudeman (gudeman@arizona.edu) writes: > Maybe I'm missing something really fundamental here. Why can't the > sites that don't want binaries just stop carrying them right now? Is > there some technical reason? I would very much like to stop carrying binaries on mcdchg, even though I find the IBM PC binaries useful on occasion and my boss finds the Mac binaries useful on occasion. There is no technical reason why I can't stop carrying them right now. The thing that is stopping me is a continuing feeling of obligation to carry the comp hierarchy (and the other groups, less talk and some alt groups) to make them available to the sites I feed. I feel this obligation even though no such obligation actually exists. Some day, news volume will be so high that tough choices will have to be made. Already, my disk space and modem time is tight. Moving the binaries to a new hierarchy for which I would not *feel* responsible would help me out a great deal. Don't taunt the administrators of machines that feed multiple megabytes of traffic through their systems every day with things like, "Why can't the sites ... just stop carrying them". If I finally do start cutting off newsgroups in comp, rec, soc, misc, etc., you might be surprised at just how little continues to go through here. I've talked before about BBSs and Compuserve. I've talked about how cheap modems really are these days. I've talked about user groups. The binaries don't even have to travel as news. Alternatives are viable and exist. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)