pem@cadnetix.UUCP (Paul Meyer) (10/28/87)
[] In article <1754@dicome.UUCP>, Doug Plate says: > Awhile back, some people started complained that some of these bigger > files being posted were really a drag for some on the network with > limited disk space. SO, APPLE2-L was set up. Being on uucp, I have > seen no benefit from this list yet, as apparently, the LISTSERV can't > send stuff to uucp addresses on request anyway. Well, the way I see > it (and this is just my opinion) the messages about how to use LISTSERV > and various other flames, questions, etc. concerning the APPLE2-L > have probably taken up a good deal of disk space themselves! Maybe > I'm the only one that feels this way, but I am tired of reading about > LISTSERV and APPLE2-L (especially when I have not had any luck using > them). Perhaps this newsgroup really belongs to bitnet and arpa and > maybe I should just be quiet, but I liked it when people used to post > programs here where I could actually get them instead of hearing about > these great programs that I can't get to... He was supported in <8710061747.aa16857@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>, <1802@killer.UUCP>, and <752@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>. Until I got to these articles, I was thinking to myself, "Well, I guess it's time to unsubscribe to comp.sys.apple. Ever since they got the long-awaited file server in a place where it does me no good at all, all that I see on the newsgroup is 'Subscribe me!' 'Wow, here's a nifty keen program to do everything anybody ever wanted. Get it off the LISTSERV!', and 'Would you ^@^# morons send the right messages to the right places!'." Please, please, please, can we get this stuff off of comp.sys.apple/info-apple and use this group to talk about apples? Perhaps someone on the wider net can suggest a way to do this. (This is why I have cross-posted to news.groups and included most of the original article.) A new newsgroup does not sound reasonable, but since a good amount of the volume is people subcribing to (or more properly trying to subscribe to) a mailing list, a mailing list would be a little recursive. (*sigh*) -- pem@cadnetix.UUCP (nbires!isis!ico!cadnetix!pem)
shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) (11/01/87)
In article <1005@cadnetix.UUCP> pem@cadnetix.UUCP (Paul Meyer) writes: >[] >In article <1754@dicome.UUCP>, Doug Plate says: >> limited disk space. SO, APPLE2-L was set up. Being on uucp, I have >> seen no benefit from this list yet, as apparently, the LISTSERV can't >> send stuff to uucp addresses on request anyway. >> [requests for means of accessing programs through uucp] >He was supported in <8710061747.aa16857@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>, ><1802@killer.UUCP>, and <752@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>. >original article.) A new newsgroup does not sound reasonable, but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think a new newsgroup (i.e. comp.sys.apple.binaries or whatever) is reasonable. Both the Mac and IBM world have binary groups, and there is certainly enough market for Apple 2 sources, as the last few messages indicate. That way, sources and the annoying messages about how to get on LISTSERV wont clog this newsgroup, and those who want sources have ready availability on UUCP. Well, if anybodys taking votes, heres one vote for a new newsgroup! -- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center ihnp4!srcsip!shankar
patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (11/03/87)
In article <369@altura.srcsip.UUCP>, shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) writes: > In article <1005@cadnetix.UUCP> pem@cadnetix.UUCP (Paul Meyer) writes: > >In article <1754@dicome.UUCP>, Doug Plate says: > >> limited disk space. SO, APPLE2-L was set up. Being on uucp, I have > >> seen no benefit from this list yet, as apparently, the LISTSERV can't > >> send stuff to uucp addresses on request anyway. > >> [requests for means of accessing programs through uucp] > >He was supported in <8710061747.aa16857@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>, > ><1802@killer.UUCP>, and <752@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>. > >original article.) A new newsgroup does not sound reasonable, but Subash Shankar writes: > I think a new newsgroup (i.e. comp.sys.apple.binaries or whatever) is > reasonable. Both the Mac and IBM world have binary groups, and there is > certainly enough market for Apple 2 sources, as the last few messages i> Well, if anybodys taking votes, heres one vote for a new newsgroup! Hmmm, I wonder if we should *ask* everyone to vote on this issue; maybe we can discuss the pros and cons of a comp.binaries.apple2 group to replace LISTSERV@BROWNVM.BITNET. What happens to BITNET people if comp.binaries.apple2 replaces the LISTSERV? Would they be unable to get the files? Would *everyone* have access to a comp.binaries.apple2 group? If and when a comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is created how long do the files remain before systems delete them; are they aged and then deleted after, for example, 30, 60 or 90 days? Is it better to have LISTSERV so that old files can be killed when they are replaced with new versions, i.e., BLU 2.0 is now replaced by BLU 2.27 and is this a burden on Christopher Chung, to have to keep track of which files to keep and which files to delete? Should *everyone* sending files to LISTSERV also send a message addressed to Christopher Chung asking him to delete the old file which has been replaced by the new version they are sending? Sorry for all these questions, but I don't have the answers and Chris is running out of disk space. For example, Kermit 3.78 is still on LISTSERV even though the new Kermit 3.79 replaces it - should it be deleted? With respect to BLU 2.0 - it might be worth keeping it because BLU 2.27 won't run on an unenhanced ][e, so those users will need BLU 2.0 to unbunny the BNY files. Is it true that we'll need 100 YES votes to get a comp.binaries. apple2 group? Who will tally the YES votes? -- Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510 New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring (212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/132 or 107/222
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (11/06/87)
In article <1879@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > What happens to BITNET people if comp.binaries.apple2 replaces > the LISTSERV? Would they be unable to get the files? Would > *everyone* have access to a comp.binaries.apple2 group? You don't have to replace it. Just create the comp.binaries group and gateway the LISTSERV to it (ask Erik Fair (fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu) how to do this). > If and when a comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is created how > long do the files remain before systems delete them; are they > aged and then deleted after, for example, 30, 60 or 90 days? Up to the system. 2 weeks is normal. > Is it true that we'll need 100 YES votes to get a comp.binaries. > apple2 group? Who will tally the YES votes? This from Len Tower, when I asked about this at one point. Please do it, I just haven't had the time. ------- Kee: you propose the group in news.groups and other relevant groups with Followup-To: news.groups. You offer to conduct the vote for it and ask people to send you the votes. If you get several hundred Yeses, you report the results of the vote to news.groups and get a backbone site to issue the newgroup control message, and arrange with Eric Fair (aka usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu) to gate the group for BITNET to USENET. It be wise to get and include the full data on the BITNET list and server including usage and membership to date. It would help show there's a need. ----- Note that the "100" is probably not absolutely necessary. -nazgul -- ### {mit-erl,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!nazgul ### apollo!nazgul@eddie.mit.edu ### ### pro-angmar!nazgul@pro-sol.cts.com ### nazgul@apollo.com ### ### (617) 641-3722 300/1200/2400 ### ### I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (11/07/87)
In article <1879@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: >Hmmm, > I wonder if we should *ask* everyone to vote on this issue; maybe >we can discuss the pros and cons of a comp.binaries.apple2 group >to replace LISTSERV@BROWNVM.BITNET. > > What happens to BITNET people if comp.binaries.apple2 replaces >the LISTSERV? Would they be unable to get the files? Would >*everyone* have access to a comp.binaries.apple2 group? >-- >Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth What we really ought to do is form comp.sys.binaries.apple or whatever, and use listserv for *archives*, just like they do with UNIX archives in comp.sources.unix etc. The binaries *should* be moderated, to prevent a mass of them, and also to manage the archives. Of course, if we made listserv the archive, that wouldn't be too much use for us on UUCP, as we wouldn't be able to get archives. Sean Kamath -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@Berkeley.BITNET ARPA: tektronix!reed!kamath@Berkeley <or> reed!kamath@hplabs US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)