bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (01/19/88)
In article <171@sea375.UUCP> dave@sea375.UUCP (David A. Wilson) writes: >I recently noticed several references to source sent out in alt.sources. >Some of the references were bug fixes in comp.bugs. I had been looking >for a few of the programs mentioned for quite a while wondering why I hadn't >seen more recent versions distributed. I was very disappointed to find >out that I may have missed a lot of program source because it was sent >out in the alt subnet. I think subnets are fine for special interest groups >and non-computer oriented discussions, but why put computer source on >a limited distribution net like alt? I thought comp.sources.misc was >going to be the unmoderated sources newgroup. Can anyone enlighten me >as to why this split occurred? I would like to know the answer to this, too. It doesn't seem to me that alt.sources is providing any service not already provided by other groups. I asked our newsfeed about the "alt" groups, and he tells me that the site that is the primary feed for (most?) of the Seattle area (at least the Eastside) chose not to carry any of the alt groups. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Quick-Frozen Wombat) (01/19/88)
In various articles bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) and dave@sea375.UUCP (David A. Wilson) query the rationale for the existence of alt.sources. I recommend that they, and anyone else looking for the answer to this, read the article "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies", in news.announce.newusers. -- Rich Kulawiec, rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu, s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk PUCC Unix Staff
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (01/20/88)
The question has been asked: "Why are sources in alt.sources instead of
comp.sources.misc (or similar)?"
The short answer: people using the alt.sources group wanted an
unmoderated sources group, and a significant number of sites carrying
Usenet groups indicated they would *not* carry such a group.
The long answer: net.sources was one of the oldest and largest
newsgroups on the Usenet. It was gatewayed into the Arpanet as the
unix-sources mailing list. Many sites archived the group to keep
sources that came across. It was a valuable resource.
As time went on, however, entropy took its toll. People began posting
binaries for PCs, requests for sources, bug fixes, commentary on the
state of the group, flames about posting binaries, and so on. Non-Unix
postings became frequent, much to the dismay of the Arpa-land readers.
The group began to suffer from a large noise-to-signal ratio, where
some weeks the number of non-source postings would outnumber source by
2 to 1 or more. Sites archiving the group were also suffering because
they ended up archiving this chaff along with the wheat, so to speak.
Usenet groups were created for these other types of postings, including
the binaries groups, the discussion subgroup, the "wanted" groups, and
the other source groups. Unfortunately, many posters either ignored
the existence of these other groups or else they crossposted into the
sources group.
A moderated group was seen as the way to go. One was created and run
for about a year, alongside the net.sources group, and the
signal-to-noise was very high. Many people stopped reading net.sources
due to its volume and noise; some sites even stopped carrying
net.sources.
During the 86 summer Usenix, a majority of the backbone admins got
together along with a number of other site admins and discussed plans
with renaming and problems with the net. The usual complaint people
had with moderated groups was the difficulty with mailing submissions
and being sure they got through (there were other concerns, but they
weren't voiced as often). So, along with the renaming, we came up with
a change to the news software to make it easier to submit to moderated
groups by using the "mailpaths" mechanism. (I believe the credit for
that idea goes to either Larry Auton or Ron Heiby for first getting the
idea, and to Rick Adams for implementing it).
When the renaming of the comp.* groups was done, the unmoderated
net.sources was dropped (by not translating it into a comp.? group). A
_j1g{oll of backbone and other sites showed that many would not carry an
unmoderated sources group if it existed, so it didn't make sense to
continue claiming it was a netwide group (Europe had ceased to get
net.sources due to volume long before).
Meanwhile, a number of people were upset that there would be no
unmoderated group for "quick-and-dirty" source postings, or posting of
sources quickly, and so on. Thus, they were unhappy with having only a
moderated group. The response to this was to continue to carry the
"net.sources" group; no rmgroup was every issued for it, so sites
keeping it in their "sys" file could continue to pass it, thus having
an alternate hierarchy.
At the same time, a different group of people set up another, alternate
distribution of an unmoderated sources group. Since two other
alternate groups already existed (alt.drugs, because many "mainstream"
sites didn't want to carry postings about recreational drug use, and
"alt.gourmand" because Brian Reid didn't like the new name of
mod.recipes so he refused to support the renamed Usenet group), it was
decided to create an unmoderated alt.sources group. After a short
while, the sites carrying "net.sources" merged it into "alt.sources".
As things now stand, mainstream Usenet users seem happy with the very
high level of quality of postings to the current moderated sources
groups, along with the distributed archives and indexing being done.
Meanwhile, I guess the alt.sources group is alive and well (we don't
get it here) carrying whatever it carries; the fact that every site
doesn't carry it and that the mainstream moderated groups work so well
no doubt helps ensure that it is not overwhelmed with garbage
postings.
Bottom line: if you have source you want to share, and if you take a
little time to put some documentation (and maybe a makefile) together,
the moderated groups will give you the widest possible forum. On the
other hand, if you have some source or discussion that doesn't meet the
requirements for the moderated groups, you can post to "alt.sources"
and reach 1/3 to 1/2 of the same sites.
--
Gene Spafford
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafreid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) (01/20/88)
A "definitive answer" about alt.sources from one of the people who is most annoyed by the existence of the alt groups amuses me. The alt groups exist because the people who founded the alt net did not like the increasing level of bureaucracy, centralization, and rule-making in the mainstream USENET. So we created the alt subnet. Alt.sources exists because a lot of people want it. There is no other reason. It amuses me greatly that the existence of alt.sources annoys so many people, but that is not its purpose. For the record, here are the propagation statistics for the alt groups as of this morning (I made a special mid-month run of arbitron just for this): 74% alt.gourmand 69% alt.sources 57% alt.config 56% alt.test 54% alt.cyberpunk 53% alt.flame 51% alt.drugs 43% alt.aquaria In other words, alt.gourmand reaches about 3/4 of the net, and alt.sources reaches a little more than 2/3 of the net. To repeat, the ONLY reason that alt.sources exists is that people wanted it. The alt groups do not need backbone approval or voting procedure in order to exist. About 3/4 of the sites on USENET seem to agree that it is a good thing. The joy of the alt groups is that if you don't want them, you don't have to carry them, and nobody gets bent out of shape about it. Brian Reid
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/20/88)
In article <2989@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: > ... :-) > Bottom line: if you have source you want to share, and if you take a > little time to put some documentation (and maybe a makefile) together, > the moderated groups will give you the widest possible forum. On the > other hand, if you have some source or discussion that doesn't meet the > requirements for the moderated groups, you can post to "alt.sources" > and reach 1/3 to 1/2 of the same sites. Actually, the standards of the various moderated sources groups have varied quite a bit over the past year. At many times they have claimed to reject absolutely no source (so don't be intimediated by a supposed need to document or figure out make). However, if you have a source that you want to share with a more discerning group of readers who can fend for themselves instead of be nurse-maided by a moderator, you should consider posting to alt.sources. Of course, with an unmoderated alt.sources as well as so much source appearing in non-source groups, it is not surprising that people seem content with the moderated sources group -- by and large they just bypass them whenever they are annoyed by them (just as they do when mcvax boycotts rec.arts.poems or when news software tries to restrict the percentage of quoted material). --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (01/22/88)
In article <736@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >Actually, the standards of the various moderated sources groups have varied >quite a bit over the past year. At many times they have claimed to reject >absolutely no source (so don't be intimediated by a supposed need to >document or figure out make). > I disagree completely. In my opinion, both comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.misc moderators have been doing a great job, including writing the occasional man page that appears to be so hard to write. Since around 1984, I have been reading source groups, and the moderated source group quality has been consistently better, ever since they got initiated. Btw: don't be intimidated by the real need for a man page/document and a make file. It is rumored that someone once said "If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well". She/he could be right. Whether you send it to comp.sources.* or alt.* is irrelevant. >However, if you have a source that you want to share with a more discerning >group of readers who can fend for themselves instead of be nurse-maided by a >moderator, you should consider posting to alt.sources. Since when did it become fashionable to insult the readership of the net, on the basis of their interest [or lack thereof] to carry/read certain newsgroups ? How do you know what a *more discerning* net reader wants to read ?? Do tell us. (Make sure to cross post to all newsgroups.) oz -- Those who lose the sight Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yunexus!oz of what is really important ......!seismo!mnetor!yunexus!oz are destined to become Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] irrelevant. - anon Phonet: +1 416 736-5257 x 3976
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/23/88)
In article <292@yunexus.UUCP<, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: < ... and a make file. It is rumored that someone < once said "If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well". Actually, the rule is: If you think a job is worth doing, do it! < In article <736@brandx.rutgers.edu< webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: < <However, if you have a source that you want to share with a more discerning < <group of readers who can fend for themselves instead of be nurse-maided by a < <moderator, you should consider posting to alt.sources. < < Since when did it become fashionable to insult the < readership of the net, on the basis of their interest [or < lack thereof] to carry/read certain newsgroups ? How do you < know what a *more discerning* net reader wants to read ?? < Do tell us. (Make sure to cross post to all newsgroups.) There is no more insult in what I said than there is in your claim (and the claim of the person to whom I was replying) that the sources in one group are of better ``quality'' that the sources in the other group. After all, what's goose for the gander is sauce for the asparagus. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)