sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) (02/24/88)
Here's the current vote tally for the proposed comp.binaries.hypercard group: YES votes Scott Robert Anderson emoryu1!phssra Steven Bellenot ut-emx!sfb Laurien M. Chirica polyslo!chirica David Coster phoenix!dcoster Drew Dean wolf!drew Robert Del Favero, Jr. ? Glen Ditchfield ? Dave Emme uts.amdahl.com!daveemme Margot Flowers ucla-cs!flowers Michael Gleicher gleicher@cs.duke.edu John Harkin pixor!jh Tony Jacobs t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu Joel Levin bbn!levin Shane Looker pepe.cc.umich.edu!shane Jim Macak lakesys!macak David Macy-Beckwith artecon!macbeth Clay Maeckel claris!clay Jeffrey Mattson wilma.bbn.com!jmattson Cliff Morrison ug.utah.edu!u-cdmorr Rodrigo Murillo boulder!murillo Stephen Pearl topaz.rutgers.edu!pearl Kanthan Pillay phoenix!svpillay Dave Platt coherent!dplatt Danny Quah spdcc!e5274b!dquah Larry Riddle emory!riddle Keith Rose chemabs!keithR Brian Schipper claris!skip Mark Robert Smith topaz.rutgers.edu!smith Roy Smith phri!roy Bill Thompson ihdev!foz Werner Uhrig astro.as.utexas.edu!werner Edward Vielmetti ? Chuq Von Rospach ? Matthew P. Wiener garnet.berkeley,edu!weemba Peter Wisnovsky phoenix!pswisnov NO votes Steve Arrants microsof!stephena Bob Webber athos.rutgers.edu!webber Remeber to mail in your votes! Jan Harrington, sysop Scholastech Telecommunications ihnp4!husc6!amcad!stech!sysop or allegra!stech!sysop ******************************************************************************** Miscellaneous profundity: "No matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Banzai ********************************************************************************
bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (03/02/88)
In article <457@stech.UUCP> sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) writes: >Here's the current vote tally for the proposed comp.binaries.hypercard >group: > >YES votes 35 votes >NO votes 2 votes I vote no. But given the number of yes votes, I doubt that it will do much good. Here's my reasoning (as moderator of the already existing comp.binaries.mac): There are a lot of folks out there that see the volume of comp.binaries.mac as too high, which is why I limit the volume in the way that I do. Apart from checking out the postings that I receive, that's the major function of the moderator: to limit the volume to what is perceived by a majority of the net to be "an acceptable level". Even so, comp.binaries.mac is usually in the "Top 10" groups according to volume, and given that visibility, its easy to see why people who spend the bucks complain. Yes, the Mac is a popular computer, but if you look at the arbitron stats that are posted once a month, I sincerely doubt that increasing the volume that is posted for the benefit of a fairly small number of readers is that wise a move. (Actually, this months stats are likely to be way off since the group took an unexpected break for two weeks. Previous months stats are likely to be more accurate.) We really need to find an effective way to deal with the volume of what is posted before we start adding new binary groups. And especially since there really isn't such thing as a "small" hypercard stack. What to do? Some have suggested rejecting anything that is bigger than X, but that would effectively eliminate most hypercard stacks. Yes, the Esperanto stack was hugh, but I felt that even though many people might not have an interest in Esperanto, it was a terrific example of just what could be done with Hypercard. Many complained about the commercialism of posting the THINK upgrades; many people praised THINK about the level of support they gave their product. Many people have complained about the commercialism of demos; many have commented that previewing demos are invaluable. Another point I'd like to raise is what can be done to increase the reliability of the net in terms of probability of receiving a multi-part posting intact. The way things are, using the net as a distribution medium for binaries is fairly big gamble. Witness the number of postings here asking for replacement part 3 of this and parts 5 and 6 of that. It is far to likely that some site or sites is going to scramble a binary posting. I did what I could to distribute postings to a number of different sites, but as you can see from recent history, things still got screwed up. So, I would hope these things would be taken into account before we go too much farther down the comp.binaries path. -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug