hackeron@athena.mit.edu (Harris L Gilliam) (05/15/88)
A little while back I posted a message to comp.sys.cbm asking why there was no comp.binaries.cbm. A few people replied and said they would be interested in seeing a comp.binaries.cbm. Now is your chance for the rest of you to express your support/dislike etc. I personally would greatly enjoy a comp.binaries.cbm for the purpose of posting C64 and C128 software. Any other takers ??!! | Harris L. Gilliam () Internet : hackeron@athena.mit.edu | |4 Ames St. Cambridge MA 02139 () UUCP {backbone..}!mit-eddie!athena!hackeron| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ * When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers *
dennisf@marque.mu.edu (Dennis Flaherty) (05/15/88)
In article <5355@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> hackeron@athena.mit.edu (Harris L Gilliam) writes: > A little while back I posted a message to comp.sys.cbm asking why > there was no comp.binaries.cbm. A few people replied and said they > would be interested in seeing a comp.binaries.cbm. Now is your chance > for the rest of you to express your support/dislike etc. Count me in too! What should we do to make this happen? -- Dennis Flaherty dennisf%marque@csd1.milw.wisc.edu Marquette University 3790FLAH@MUCSD.BITNET USNail: 826 N. 20th St. dennisf@marque.mu.edu Milwaukee, WI 53233
mat@emcard.UUCP (Mat Waites) (05/17/88)
>Any other takers ??!!
I'm definitely a taker. I'm all for a comp.binaries AND a comp.source.
Mat
--
W Mat Waites | PHONE: (404) 727-7197
Emory Univ Cardiac Data Bank | UUCP: ...!gatech!emcard!mat
Atlanta, GA 30322 |haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (05/18/88)
In article <5491@emcard.UUCP>, mat@emcard.UUCP (Mat Waites) writes: > >Any other takers ??!! > > I'm definitely a taker. I'm all for a comp.binaries AND a comp.source. > -- > Mat NO! C64 binaries are being sold in stores all around dallas for $'s and the transmission costs for binaries of any size are $,$$$'s. this is getting to be more ridiculous than webber's eniac proposal. the net is undergoing expontential growth. let's not contribute to that growth any further by adding binary groups for non-unix systems. call me an elitist if you wish. it's getting to be a matter of survival. - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :DOMAIN "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
bowen@sunybcs.UUCP (Devon E Bowen) (05/20/88)
In article <125@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >NO! C64 binaries are being sold in stores all around dallas for $'s >and the transmission costs for binaries of any size are $,$$$'s. this >is getting to be more ridiculous than webber's eniac proposal. > >the net is undergoing expontential growth. let's not contribute to >that growth any further by adding binary groups for non-unix systems. >call me an elitist if you wish. it's getting to be a matter of >survival. I'm really not for binary newsgroups either. They cost far to much and are far too limited in usefulness and I wouldn't be all that sad if all the binary groups just disappeared. But, as long as we're going to have them at all, I'll insist that we have one for cbm. Most (all?) of the arguments against this proposal are arguments against binary groups in general. I have not seen many with legitimate points against this particular group. Until I see some, this group will get my "yes" vote. Devon Bowen Packet: KA2NRC@WA0PTV University at Buffalo BITNET: bowen@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: bowen@cs.Buffalo.EDU UUCP: ...!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!bowen
dennisf@marque.mu.edu (Dennis Flaherty) (05/20/88)
In article <125@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: > In article <5491@emcard.UUCP>, mat@emcard.UUCP (Mat Waites) writes: > > >Any other takers ??!! > > > > I'm definitely a taker. I'm all for a comp.binaries AND a comp.source. > > -- > > Mat > > NO! C64 binaries are being sold in stores all around dallas for $'s Good for Dallas. As for everywhere else, the only binaries we can get locally are commercial packages. It would be nice if I could get binaries from the net archives, but NONE serve cbm. NONE. > and the transmission costs for binaries of any size are $,$$$'s. this > is getting to be more ridiculous than webber's eniac proposal. 1) Apply the C64 size argument of the previous article. The C64 (and the C128 for that matter) doesn't have much room to squeeze in a huge binary. 2) As it has been shown, the traffic level for 8-bit cbm computers is relatively small. If the concern is for overall storage and transmission costs, why is it that comp.binaries.cbm should be the one to be cut? > the net is undergoing expontential growth. let's not contribute to > that growth any further by adding binary groups for non-unix systems. > call me an elitist if you wish. it's getting to be a matter of > survival. Is USENET dedicated to the promotion of UNIX alone? Seeing how much traffic exists in other newsgroups besides comp.unix.*, I doubt that. I have a C128, and run both native and CPM mode regularly, thanks to comp.os.cpm and comp.sys.cbm. Usenet has helped a lot. -- Dennis Flaherty dennisf%marque@csd1.milw.wisc.edu Marquette University 3790FLAH@MUCSD.BITNET USNail: 826 N. 20th St. dennisf@marque.mu.edu Milwaukee, WI 53233