erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (01/11/88)
In article <3764@islenet.UUCP>, richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: > Disregarding network traffic loads for a moment; is there some > reason why it would not be a good idea to gateway the unix-pc.* > groups to mainstream Usenet? I've been wondering about this too. What does it take for an 'alternate' newsgroup to get added to the 'regular' newsgroups list. The objection of 'that's too silly' falls on it's face when you look at the wide range of subjects 'regular' groups cover. I assume that if SA's don't feel that certain groups are needed at their site, then they don't recieve that group. How much trouble is it to not recieve just a few more groups? I can sympathize (sic) with SA's of systems that are owned by agencies that do *not* want their computer users receiving alt.drugs and rec.overthrow.government :-). -- J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 Just another journalist with too much computing power.| 'Hey, watch me ollie 'Girls play with toys. Real women skate.' --Powell Peralta ad.| this <whump>'
richard@islenet.UUCP (01/16/88)
In article <164@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > In article <3764@islenet.UUCP>, richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: > > Disregarding network traffic loads for a moment; is there some > > reason why it would not be a good idea to gateway the unix-pc.* > > groups to mainstream Usenet? > > I've been wondering about this too. What does it take for an > 'alternate' newsgroup to get added to the 'regular' newsgroups list. After getting a large enough number of favorable responses from the net in support of such a move, one or more news admins could add a line like the following to their /usr/lib/news/aliases file: unix-pc.general comp.sys.att Apparently there are strong opinions on both sides right now. It's my feeling that to continue to keep the unix-pc.* groups separate will only help to fragment the 3b1 user community and reduce the support for the system. Remember, we'll be on our own soon. And the distribution of the unix-pc.* groups can't help but be much less than that available though the mainstream Usenet. Some of the people that started the unix-pc net seem to have some strong attachments to it, and would prefer not to see it changed. I can appreciate this sentiment. And I appreciate their having started and continually supported the group even more. But I think that sentiment may be counter-productive. Increased net readership means increased responses to queries and more free software as people get help and ideas and a forum to post to. And increased readership right now tempts more people to buy 3b1's, feeding the whole cycle again... (Perhaps I should have been a politician...) Anyway, you get the idea. Thanks for listening, sorry for the length. -- Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/19/88)
In article <3788@islenet.UUCP> richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: > >After getting a large enough number of favorable responses from the >net in support of such a move, one or more news admins could add a >line like the following to their /usr/lib/news/aliases file: > >unix-pc.general comp.sys.att It is important to realize that the unix-pc net is an alternative network, which may or may not be carried alongside the 'normal' Usenet groups. For my site, for example, doing this would carry no penalty, as I currently carry both sets of groups. What of a site which only carries the unix-pc groups, though? While the intent of your proposal is laudable, I would suggest that it only be carried out with the express cooperation of the unix-pc sites themselves. If they don't want to do it, the effects, it seems to me, would be more detrimental than helpful. We would be increasing the volume of comp.sys.att by some (albeit small) amount and eliminating a valuable source of information for some number of unix-pc sites, which does not appear to be a desirable goal. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) (01/20/88)
In article <3788@islenet.UUCP> richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: >After getting a large enough number of favorable responses from the >net in support of such a move, one or more news admins could add a >line like the following to their /usr/lib/news/aliases file: > >unix-pc.general comp.sys.att Please think long and hard before doing this. Remember that a large number of 3B1s on the unix-pc net are not on usenet. You will be essentially shutting out the average 3B1 owner from the net, you will be placing the discussion under the control of the netgods who probably have never even heard of a 3B1, and you will be doing something that will be increasingly difficult to UNdo should it turn out to be a bad idea. I still do not understand the benefit of unix-pc being swallowed by comp.sys.att. Can't anyone who is interested in the 3B1 hook into the unix-pc net? Yes. Is anyone being forced to read it that doesn't want to? No. The only advantage I can see is that it might be cheaper to you and me -- the costs of transmitting the net would be transferred onto the already over-burdened backs of the backbone sites, who continue to complain more and more everyday about runaway net-volume. When examined closely, I think that is more of a disadvantage than an advantage. Until I hear an argument to convince me otherwise, ethos will continue to receive and transmit articles in the unix-pc net separate from comp.sys.att. There always IS the option of cross-posting, by the way. -- Gary J. Smith, M.D. {mcnc,ihnp4}!ethos!gary P.O. Box 8005, Gray, Tenn. 37615
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (01/21/88)
In article <3788@islenet.UUCP> richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: > >After getting a large enough number of favorable responses from the >net in support of such a move, one or more news admins could add a >line like the following to their /usr/lib/news/aliases file: > >unix-pc.general comp.sys.att These points have already been made by others, but I think they're worth reiterating: 1. You can always cross-post to comp.sys.att, and many people do. 2. A lot of the people on the current unix-pc.* net do NOT have access to comp.sys.att and would lose their source of information if the unix-pc.* groups were swallowed by The Greater Usenet. >And the distribution of the >unix-pc.* groups can't help but be much less than that available >though the mainstream Usenet. Not given the option of cross-posting. And the *combined* distribution is greater than that available only thru the mainstream Usenet ... Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (01/29/88)
[Many references to many conversations deleted] Why not just crosspost to unix-pc.groupyouwant and comp.sys.att? If a site only recieves one, then they'll still get the message. If they get both, they'll still only get one copy of the message and only have to read it one time. Or does this go back to the 'We don't want your stinkin' 3b1 messages on comp.sys.att!' argument? -- J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 Just another journalist with too much computing power.| 'Hey, watch me ollie 'Girls play with toys. Real women skate.' --Powell Peralta ad.| this <whump>'
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (01/31/88)
[added unix-pc.general to the newsgroups list] > Why not just crosspost to unix-pc.groupyouwant and comp.sys.att? > If a site only recieves one, then they'll still get the message. > If they get both, they'll still only get one copy of the message and only > have to read it one time. Remember that on systems that only get one of the groups that the sysadmins must be asked to create the other group. The group must at least exist, even if there's no feed, or attempts to post or cross-post to it will fail. I think there are other problems with relying on everyone cross-posting. When I originally suggested that some sort of gateway be setup between the two nets I thought that most people involved shared my interest for the greatest possible readership. I'm amazed that some don't. And I am a little discouraged. When I bought my 3b1, knowing that it was soon to be orphaned by AT&T, I assumed that any support or software I might need I could get via the Usenet. So far that has worked quite well. But the real value of any computer is dependant on the level of support it enjoys. And support can always be improved. I have feeds for both nets. I'm worried about other people that don't. It's to everyones advantage to have the largest number of contributors and the largest audience -- that's the way the net works, through give and take. I'm amazed by those that say the thing to do is to give everyone feeds to the unix-pc network, as if that were the best (or even a good) approach. Next to Usenet the unix-pc network is very small. The Usenet was originally created in support of computers and software. Groups like comp.sys.att, or any other reasonable computer related group will always be welcome. It's the many non-computer related groups that might need to worry about someone pulling the plug on them. Is it just a vocal clique that doesn't want to see the unix-pc groups modified (or even just better connected)? If they were simply pointing out flaws in a suggested approach I'd understand. But their responses to anything but the status quo have been surprisingly negative. I wasn't going to get into this again but I have a sizeable investment at stake, so I couldn't contain myself. I hope I haven't made too many enemies. -- Richard Foulk ...{vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
dave@galaxia.zone1.com (David H. Brierley) (02/02/88)
In article <337@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >[Many references to many conversations deleted] > >Why not just crosspost to unix-pc.groupyouwant and comp.sys.att? >If a site only recieves one, then they'll still get the message. What about the person who wants to post a message but is at a site that only gets one of the groups? Unless you have created the group despite the fact that you don't get it, the postnews program wont let you post to a group that doesn't exist on your machine. Admittedly, you can edit the newsgroups line when you are in the editor but that means another step that people have to remember. I am currently checking into several possibilities that might be used to solve the problem. I will report back when I have more info. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.zone1.com {cbosgd,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!galaxia!dave Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {cbosgd,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (02/03/88)
David H. Brierley (dave@galaxia.zone1.COM) writes: | the postnews program wont let you post to a group that | doesn't exist on your machine. Admittedly, you can edit the newsgroups line | when you are in the editor but that means another step that people have to | remember. (Un)fortunately, even if you put a "bogus" newsgroup in by hand, inews will barf on it when postnews is finished with it. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) (02/03/88)
In article <3831@islenet.UUCP> richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: >When I originally suggested that some sort of gateway be setup >between the two nets I thought that most people involved shared >my interest for the greatest possible readership. I'm amazed >that some don't. And I am a little discouraged. Don't be discouraged. I think people on both sides of the argument are interested in a combination of the greatest possible readership with a collection of high quality postings. Some have not been convinced that comp.sys.att swallowing the unix-pc groups would bring that about. You should remember that the bulk of good articles regarding the 3b1 with high signal to noise ratio have been in unix-pc and not comp.sys.att. That is one reason why we are reluctant abandon the unix-pc ship. >I'm amazed by those that say the thing to do is to give everyone >feeds to the unix-pc network, as if that were the best (or even >a good) approach. Next to Usenet the unix-pc network is very small. It is larger than you think, but certainly smaller than Usenet. And since it consists only of sites interested in the 3b1, it *should* be smaller. Not all the sites on Usenet are interested in 3b1s, and not all readers of comp.sys.att are interested in 3b1s (although many are). >Is it just a vocal clique that doesn't want to see the unix-pc >groups modified (or even just better connected)? > >If they were simply pointing out flaws in a suggested approach >I'd understand. But their responses to anything but the status >quo have been surprisingly negative. I think we have been pointing out flaws right and left. I have no particular aversion to your creating some kind of gateway--as long as it doesn't mean articles start getting double posted and readers of comp.sys.att don't have to start wading through 2 copies of every cross-posted article written. I just wonder why the gateway is necessary when cross-posting serves the exact same purpose. And again, it isn't as if people can't get hooked up to the unix-pc net. Many sites are willing to serve as feeders, and my machine is one of them. -- Gary J. Smith, M.D. {mcnc,ihnp4}!ethos!gary P.O. Box 8005, Gray, Tenn. 37615
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (02/03/88)
In article <1613@ethos.UUCP> gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) writes: >have been in unix-pc and not comp.sys.att. That is one reason >why we are reluctant abandon the unix-pc ship. So far, there has been only one proposal to completely merge the two groups. My gateway proposal started out as a *compromise* to allow comp.sys.att readers to see the unix-pc groups. I have no intention of trying to merge the two networks. >I think we have been pointing out flaws right and left. I have >no particular aversion to your creating some kind of gateway--as >long as it doesn't mean articles start getting double posted and >readers of comp.sys.att don't have to start wading through 2 >copies of every cross-posted article written. If you're interested in seeing how the gateway works, here's the script: cat >/tmp/art$$ if grep "Newsgroups:.*comp\.sys\.att" /tmp/art$$ >/dev/null; then rm -f /tmp/art$$ exit 0 else mail gatelist </tmp/art$$ rm -f /tmp/art$$ fi exit 0 Yes, it is indeed coded to remove cross-posted articles. As you see, that's an entirely trivial operation: 'grep'. >I just wonder why the gateway is necessary when cross-posting serves the >exact same purpose. Because, for many reasons discussed in other postings, cross-posting is not a *viable* alternative. People either can't crosspost or will forget to do so. >And again, it isn't as if people can't get hooked up to the unix-pc net. >Many sites are willing to serve as feeders, and my machine is one of them. Getting unix-pc added to existing services such as mail or comp.sys.att is easy for non-sysadmin types. Getting a feed for someone who either 1) does not run News on their site, or 2) gets News at work, very often just isn't worth their effort. I'd certainly much rather feed news to everyone on the mailing list, because it would be cheaper in terms of machine and connect time, but I'm willing to spend some of my resources doing it this way in the hope of helping a larger number of people. >Gary J. Smith, M.D. {mcnc,ihnp4}!ethos!gary > P.O. Box 8005, Gray, Tenn. 37615 \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 245-9461 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (02/04/88)
> I think we have been pointing out flaws right and left. I have > no particular aversion to your creating some kind of gateway--as > long as it doesn't mean articles start getting double posted and > readers of comp.sys.att don't have to start wading through 2 > copies of every cross-posted article written. [...] If gatewayed articles retain their original message-id's then the current news software will see to it that double posting and multiple copies do not happen. This is a standard feature of the netnews software that has been there for some time. -- Richard Foulk ...{vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii