rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (01/12/88)
I haven't seen anyone else with this idea, but if someone else was first apologies for this posting. Since there are active unix-pc newsgroups in the alternate newsgroups, and a lot of material is cross-posted between unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att, why not MOVE unix-pc.* to comp.sys.att.pc . I have read the about the conflict with the "notes" system but that begs the question: since we already have an ibm-pc group why not a att-pc group. If people want to read both att groups they could do it easily by adding a line in .newsrc. ...just a thought rja@edison.GE.COM
gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) (01/14/88)
In article <1285@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: > Since there are active unix-pc newsgroups in the alternate newsgroups, >and a lot of material is cross-posted between unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att, >why not MOVE unix-pc.* to comp.sys.att.pc? I have been with the unix-pc alternative network since the beginning, and I would object to its being swallowed up by the net. There were several reasons that we decided to establish the network as a 'private' network: - Only people interested in the 3B1 would need to carry the group and pay for the phone time in transmitting the group. - We would not be tyrannized by a small group of system administrators at backbone sites, as usenet is. - There would be no pressure to limit what we post, since the unix-pc groups would be small in size and would be carried by only those interested in having them (with usenet one feels as if he needs permission before he can post an article for fear of increasing net volume). The only thing that has changed since the initiation of the unix-pc network is that now many more people have 3B1s and many more sites are members of the unix-pc net. I really do not see how our joining usenet would benefit anyone -- it would increase the already overloaded usenet volume, and it would place a small circle of system administrators who may have no interest at all in 3B1s in control of the groups. -- Gary J. Smith, M.D. {mcnc,ihnp4}!ethos!gary Route 20, Box 307, Gray, Tenn. 37615
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (01/14/88)
In article <1590@ethos.UUCP>, gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) writes: > > Since there are active unix-pc newsgroups in the alternate newsgroups, > >and a lot of material is cross-posted between unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att, > >why not MOVE unix-pc.* to comp.sys.att.pc? > > I have been with the unix-pc alternative network since the > beginning, and I would object to its being swallowed up by the > net. There were several reasons that we decided to establish the > network as a 'private' network: [reasons deleted for brevity] > The only thing that has changed since the initiation of the > unix-pc network is that now many more people have 3B1s and many > more sites are members of the unix-pc net. I really do not see > how our joining usenet would benefit anyone -- it would increase > the already overloaded usenet volume, and it would place a small > circle of system administrators who may have no interest at all > in 3B1s in control of the groups. I wholeheartedly agree with Gary. There is NO ONE READING AND POSTING TO THE unix-pc.* GROUPS WHO DOES NOT ***WANT*** TO BE THERE. As a result of the above, in my opinion the unix-pc.* groups have the highest quality and signal-to-noise ratio of any newsgroup anywhere. I am fearful that this might change if the unix-pc.* groups were somehow assimilated into "mainstream" Usenet. As a site which distributes the unix-pc.* groups to several other sites, I "vote" to keep the groups separate. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|utzoo|uunet}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) (01/16/88)
In article <1590@ethos.UUCP>, gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) writes: > In article <1285@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: > >> Since there are active unix-pc newsgroups in the alternate newsgroups, >>and a lot of material is cross-posted between unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att, >>why not MOVE unix-pc.* to comp.sys.att.pc? > > - Only people interested in the 3B1 would need to carry > the group and pay for the phone time in transmitting > the group. I'd just like to point out that this would still be possible if unix-pc.all moved to the mainstream newsgroup heirarchy through the use of the 'sys' file. One can specify exactly which newsgroups are to be received - the full newsfeed does not have to be recieved. I'm not trying to start any argument, but I thought a clarification was in order. As far as moving the groups goes, I'm in favor of it. I don't see what makes the UNIX pc so special that it deserves it's own high level newsgroup set. No other system in the comp.sys.* groups is treated that way. With regards to the comments that the "backbone" would have control over the newsgroups when they don't have any interest in them: I've not seen any problems with any of the other comp.sys groups yet. I can't foresee any problems. Andrew -- $ make sense Make: Don't know how to make sense. Stop.
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (01/25/88)
In article <208@teletron.UUCP> andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes: >In article <1590@ethos.UUCP>, gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) writes: >> In article <1285@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: >>> Since there are active unix-pc newsgroups in the alternate newsgroups, >>>and a lot of material is cross-posted between unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att, >>>why not MOVE unix-pc.* to comp.sys.att.pc? >> >> - Only people interested in the 3B1 would need to carry >> the group and pay for the phone time in transmitting >> the group. This is getting a little bit old From a technical standpoint there is no reason to require that unix-pc.all be a seperate hierarchy in order that people with small machines only get that stuff. The news software will allow (and has allowed for a very very long time) you to have only one or very few groups on your system. But you have to coordinate with your feeding site. You have to tell them to have a sys line like: us:world,na,usa,state,city,!all,comp.sys.att:: (I may have a detail or two wrong, but the basic idea is to turn off everything, then turn on selected newsgroups). Now ... that's the technical standpoint. There's also the social aspects of it. THe unix-pc net was one of the first of the alternate nets and in itself is an experiment. That it has lived so long is a good sign, but I also feel it might be starving a little bit because of not enough people. Possibly if it were going to come into the mainstream there'd be a wider audience and some interesting things could come of it. But if the unix-pc people were to instead promote the spread of the newsgroups (like, offering feeds to anybody and everybody and so forth) we could achieve the same effect without having to go mainstream. We're able to take new connections for news/mail feeds. But if there's major amount of traffic involved you'd have to call us... I'm waiting on making a widespread announcement to that effect for our trailblazer's to arrive... >As far as moving the groups goes, I'm in favor of it. I'm still not sure. I don't see any compelling reason to change things. >I don't see what makes >the UNIX pc so special that it deserves it's own high level newsgroup set. >No other system in the comp.sys.* groups is treated that way. Why not? >$ make sense >Make: Don't know how to make sense. Stop. So, STOP making sense! -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- It takes more than a good memory to have good memories.