jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) (05/17/88)
In reading the recent discussions about binary groups and binary postings, it
seems that there has too often been an assumption that anyone who objects to
binary postings is a "unix elitist" or is "anti-pc". I think that this is
missing the point. I object to binary postings because of what they are, not
because virtually all of them (at this time) are for pc's of some sort. If
I undersand John Gilmore's recent postings, he feels the same way. I would
not, under any circumstances, allow a binary from the net to be run on any
computer under my control. This means that if the proposed "ABI" standard
ever becomes reality, and unix binaries start appearing on the net, I will
be every bit as opposed to them as I am to {pc,mac,atari,cbm,...} binaries.
If anything, the tendency toward binary postings seems to be increasing. In
recent weeks there have been suggestions and/or proposals for new groups for
posting hypercard stacks (I think that was it), and gif image files. While
these probably have less destructive potential than unknown executables, it
is likely that they are objectionable to a large portion of the net for many
of the other reasons associated with binary postings (size, limited interest,
etc.).
The solution offered to all those who object has consistently been to just
block comp.binaries at your news feed. This, however, at this time requires
some specific action to be taken by a neighbor site, adding !comp.binaries
to the news/sys file entry. I think the situation should be reversed. By
putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, it would require specific
action to *receive* them, rather than to block them. Given the occasionally
very large volume of postings in these groups, the rather limited interest
in them on a net-wide basis, and the tremendous volume of complaints, flames,
and counter-flames generated every time a large binary is posted, it seems a
good idea to try something to alleviate the problem, instead of just yelling
at each other about it.
jwjwp@chem.ucsd.edu (John Pierce) (05/19/88)
In article <397@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > > .... putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, would require specific > action to *receive* them, rather than to block them.... That's an excellent suggestion. -- John Pierce Chemistry, B-032, UCSD, La Jolla, CA 92093 jwp@chem.ucsd.edu jwpierce@ucsd +1 619 534 0203
faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) (05/19/88)
In article <397@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: >By putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, it would require specific >action to *receive* them, rather than to block them. I have also been thinking carefully about the binary problem, and have come to the same conclusion. If we were to put binaries in their own top level heirarchy, we would: 1) Eliminate a lot of the clutter in the comp. heirarchy 2) Allow easier segregation of binaries to those sites that wish to carry them. 3) Quite possibly, simplify archival and expiration. Think back as to why the net. heirarchy was originally split into comp., news., sci., misc., soc., and talk.. I think it may be time to split comp. into comp. for technical ascii discussions, and bin. for binaries. Daniel -- W: UNiSYS/Defense Systems/System Development Group (nee SDC) 2400 Colorado Ave;Santa Monica CA 90406;213/829-7511x5162 (or 213/453-5162) H: 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343 Email: (uucp) faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (arpa) faigin@SM.UNISYS.COM
cranor@udel.EDU (Chuck Cranor) (05/19/88)
In article <215@chem.ucsd.EDU> jwp@chem.ucsd.edu (John Pierce) writes: >In article <397@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > > > > .... putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, would require specific > > action to *receive* them, rather than to block them.... >That's an excellent suggestion. I agree! Then we'd see who *really* wants to tote around all those huge binary postings. I wonder what kind of propagation the biniary groups would get then?? Chuck [UDel News Admin] -- Chuck Cranor University of Delaware PHONE: (302)-451-6660 (UDel), (302)-737-5852 (home) ARPA: cranor@udel.EDU, UUCP: ...!<your_favorite_arpa_gateway>!udel.edu!cranor "I'd like to see John the Baptist's impersonation of Graham Hill." - R.J. Gumby
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (05/20/88)
In article <397@pan.UUCP>, jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > By > putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, it would require specific > action to *receive* them, rather than to block them. I second this motion, vigorously! -- Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan sullivan@vsi.com HE V MTL Anybody out there remember Max Webster?
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (05/20/88)
In article <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP> faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) writes: >I have also been thinking carefully about the binary problem, and >have come to the same conclusion. Me too! > If we were to put binaries in > their own top level heirarchy, we would: >1) Eliminate a lot of the clutter in the comp. heirarchy >2) Allow easier segregation of binaries to those sites that wish > to carry them. >3) Quite possibly, simplify archival and expiration. There maybe more reasons, the 3 above should suffice to start some action. >I think it may be >time to split comp. into comp. for technical ascii discussions, >and bin. for binaries. All of the above seem very excllent suggestions to me. Okay so when do we start voting on the binary hierachy and who will collect votes? I guess we need some discussion time to decide on some appropriate names, etc. Hmmm...how about bin.ibm.pc bin.your.favorite.box and so on... -- sharan kalwani, vax facility, mcf, 110 east warren avenue, detroit mi 48201 usenet : ...!{uunet!umix, pur-ee!iuvax, ucbvax!mtxinu, ihnp4!mibte}!mcf!shan internet: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu shan@mcf.uucp dec enet: decwrl::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan" fax: (313) 831-8714
haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (05/21/88)
In article <678@vsi.UUCP>, sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes: > In article <397@pan.UUCP>, jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > > By > > putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, it would require specific > > action to *receive* them, rather than to block them. > > I second this motion, vigorously! > -- > Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan a motion having been made and seconded for the creation of a separate hierarchy for binary groups, i move for a two week discussion period prior to the (hopefully) collection of votes. and as someone else said, once these have been spun off, let's see what kind of propagation they receive then! - 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
tower@bu-cs.UUCP (05/21/88)
In article <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP> faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) writes: |In article <397@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: |>By putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, it would require specific |>action to *receive* them, rather than to block them. | |I have also been thinking carefully about the binary problem, and |have come to the same conclusion. If we were to put binaries in |their own top level heirarchy, we would: | |1) Eliminate a lot of the clutter in the comp. heirarchy |2) Allow easier segregation of binaries to those sites that wish | to carry them. |3) Quite possibly, simplify archival and expiration. | |Think back as to why the net. heirarchy was originally split into |comp., news., sci., misc., soc., and talk.. I think it may be |time to split comp. into comp. for technical ascii discussions, |and bin. for binaries. | |Daniel |-- |W: UNiSYS/Defense Systems/System Development Group (nee SDC) | 2400 Colorado Ave;Santa Monica CA 90406;213/829-7511x5162 (or 213/453-5162) |H: 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343 |Email: (uucp) faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (arpa) faigin@SM.UNISYS.COM Binaries are only half the problem. If USENET really decides to go through another renaming spasm, we should let comp be devoted only to issues of general technical interest. newsgroups devoted to specific classes of machines should have their own top-level newsclasses. All PC's should be included. I'm not sure about mini-/main/super-computers. This will allow those sites who care about the immense amount of traffic about PC's to pay for it. And more importantly, the sites who don't want to carry it, can save some $$. unix-pc.all has successfully showed the benefits of doing things this way. Yes, there will be the stray postings to comp.sys.misc. But the comp.all volume will still drop a lot. Yes, it isn't unfair if your USENET administrators decides they can't foot the bill. Go get a USENET feed for your PC or join the pay as you go services like Compuserve, BIX, Delphi, or the Source. I suggest for starters, the following top level classes with their own backbones: ibm-pc.all mac.all apple2.all amiga.all atari.all enjoy -len
kevin@perle.UUCP (Kevin Pickard) (05/26/88)
In article <215@chem.ucsd.EDU> jwp@chem.ucsd.edu (John Pierce) writes: >In article <397@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > > > > .... putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, would require specific > > action to *receive* them, rather than to block them.... > >That's an excellent suggestion. I agree, it is an excellent suggestion. It has my vote. Kevin Pickard ...!uunet!mnetor!perle!kevin