rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (10/29/85)
I must strongly protest the discussed removal of the Macintosh related
groups. I use the groups for my WORK which, among other things, involves
looking into the feasiblity of using the Macintosh as an inexpensive
graphics terminal IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT.
There is a growing number people in my organization using the Macintosh
to offload some of our word processing/engineering drawing tasks to lighten
the load on our Unix systems in addition to using them as intelligent/graphics
terminals IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT. A steady flow of information and software
from others doing the same kinds of research is essential to our WORK.
Finding the MacWrite to troff converter and the MacPaint to imagen software
on the group has been helpful to our WORK. It allows us to create documents
with drawings in the Macintosh environment and upload them to be modified and
distributed to others in our UNIX ENVIRONMENT and converted to hardcopy on
our laser printer.
I emphasize the WORK because that is what this network is supposed to be used
for: the dissemination of information for the purpose of increasing one's eff-
ectiveness at WORK. If there is a legal problem with "shareware" then find out
about it and act accordingly. If there is no real problem, then leave the
shareware alone. I have found a few gems come through that more than justify
the existence of the group. Software, by the way, that I use in my WORK.
I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until
it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. Net.micro.mac and Net.
mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so
certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the
Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE.
--
richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego
{ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rechenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/31/85)
> [net.sources.mac is highly relevant to my work, therefore...] > I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until > it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. Net.micro.mac and Net. > mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so > certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the > Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE. Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (11/02/85)
In article <6100@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > . . . > > mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so > > certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the > > Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE. > > Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, > and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are > ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using > the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but > why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry The net works because we cooperate in serving the needs of other sites, Henry, even if they don't precisely match our own. Why should our site pay for the exchange of technical information for hardware we don't have (AT&T, IBM, etc.)? Because we expect in return that other sites will support connectivity for articles about things that we DO have, like VAXen and Macintoshes. It works both ways. So: have you considered using U.S./Canadian mail as an alternative to net.{micro.att,micro.ibm-pc, etc.} yet? :-) It's cheaper than the net, too. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
royt@gatech.CSNET (Roy M Turner) (11/03/85)
In article <6100@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, >and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are >ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using >the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but >why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? > So don't pay for it--your site has the option of which newsgroups it carries for its users, and which ones it passes along to any other site that gets news from you. If you don't want net.sources.mac, then work it out with your own users. If each site did this, including the backbone sites, then perhaps the net would be better off. As it happens, I use the MacIntosh for the same reason that I use Unix--to get some work done. Many of the postings to net.sources.mac have been of use in this--and a good many of them were (dare I say it?) shareware. I whole-heartedly hope that the current yelling and gnashing of teeth about net.sources.mac doesn't result in it disappearing; perhaps you and people with similar views, that is, non-Mac users who are concerned with other sites' phone bills, will be pleased, but I certainly won't. Not all of us are in the financial position to go out and buy software for every need--the network fills that gap between need and means nicely. It's been pointed out before, but bears repeating: why get rid of a newsgroup that serves a useful purpose (all right, not to everyone, but *I* don't find the Unix newsgroups that useful, either, most of the time, so there!), and keep drivel like net.origins, net.flame, etc., etc., ad nauseum? I'm not complaining about those groups--I don't read them, and if I were the one worried about phone bills at my site, I would look hard and long at dropping them; but I am not going to propose dropping them from the network because such and such's site has a large phone bill--that is their business and their concern. Hmmm...I suppose you could consider this a vote in favor of keeping net.sources.mac :-). Roy
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/04/85)
In article <1852@gatech.CSNET> royt@gatech.UUCP (Roy M Turner) writes: >It's been pointed out before, but bears repeating: why get rid of a >newsgroup that serves a useful purpose (all right, not to everyone, but *I* >don't find the Unix newsgroups that useful, either, most of the time, so >there!), and keep drivel like net.origins, net.flame, etc., etc., Because this site runs Unix, we have a charter to support Unix and if we ever had to, we could argue that net.unix-wizards helps us do so. No such argument applies to the Mac. Hey, if you like the Mac so much, why not run your own network on it? And who's to say net.flame will be kept? Let me lay some numbers on you. In the past two weeks, there were nearly 900K of net.sources.mac. Most (all?) of it binaries and totally useless to the Unix users at this site. n.s.m is the biggest group by far, 50% bigger than the next largest group. That is why we are picking on it first, instead of net.flame. But that doesn't mean I think net.flame is worth keeping, just that n.s.m is where the big reduction in phone bills is. Don't talk about n.s.m in the same breath as other newsgroups, it is far and away the biggest pig. -- The number of California lottery tickets sold is greater than the number of people in the United States of America. Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
gig@ritcv.UUCP (Gordon Goodman) (11/04/85)
In article <226@mplvax.UUCP> rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) writes: > >I must strongly protest the discussed removal of the Macintosh related >groups. I use the groups for my WORK which, among other things, involves >looking into the feasiblity of using the Macintosh as an inexpensive >graphics terminal IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT. > >Finding the MacWrite to troff converter and the MacPaint to imagen software >on the group has been helpful to our WORK. It allows us to create documents >with drawings in the Macintosh environment and upload them to be modified and >distributed to others in our UNIX ENVIRONMENT and converted to hardcopy on >our laser printer. > I too use the Mac on a regular basis as my primary interface to our Unix environment and have found many of the postings to the net in the .mac groups enormously helpful. Machines like the Mac are rapidly becoming a part of the larger Unix environment. It is important, for the vitality of the Unix community, not to put on blinders about the significance and impact of readily-available microcomputers as workstations. As I wade through the daily net news, the mac groups are among the very few groups that have real utility. This is a strong vote for the continuation of mac groups in general and .sources.mac in particular. Gordon Goodman School of Computer Science & Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
mn@ll1.UUCP (Mark Nettleingham) (11/04/85)
I would like to vote for keeping net.sources.mac. Even though we are not directly involved in Macintosh applications there have been many useful programs posted there (several persons in this organization have Mac's at home). If however, it is removed I suggest that we form a "sub-net" of sites that want to continue receiving Mac software. It wouldn't be as nice as having the entire network but would, perhaps, keep Macintosh software flowing. Isn't is possible for those sites that don't want net.sources.mac to tell their hosts not to send it to them? Mark Nettleingham ..!mgnetp!ll1!mn
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/05/85)
Being one of the people who originally raised the rmgroup net.sources.*
issue, I'd like to clarify my position a little.
I would like to see the net.sources.* groups become mod.sources.*
groups. I have no desire to see Mac groups taken off the net entirely,
since they provide a useful resource for Mac users, which there are a
lot of on the net I'm sure. All I want to see is a reduction in the
massive repostings, requests for repostings, postings of useless or
limited use sources, overly buggy sources, etc. from the net. Is that
so much to ask? If I thought that net.sources.* could achieve this I
wouldn't have sent out my posting, but I have observed the traffic in
net.sources.* over the past year and a half and come to the conclusion
that a lot of it can be cut out. Modration accomplishes that goal if
the posters themselves refuse to cut the traffic down.
If there is a site which has no use for Mac software I suggest they just
don't pass it anymore and sites which want it will have to get Mac stuff
from other sites. No rmgroups need to be issued in this case.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.eduhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/05/85)
> The net works because we cooperate in serving the needs of other > sites, Henry, even if they don't precisely match our own. The problem is that said cooperation is becoming very expensive. > Why should > our site pay for the exchange of technical information for hardware we > don't have (AT&T, IBM, etc.)? Because we expect in return that other > sites will support connectivity for articles about things that we DO have, > like VAXen and Macintoshes. It works both ways. Yes and no. Much of the non-Mac traffic is not particularly machine- specific. One of the things that deeply irks a lot of people is that net.sources.mac does *not* deal in sources, from which non-Mac people might actually learn something. Virtually all its traffic is Mac binaries, which are utterly useless to anyone else. In essence what we have is a subnet of Macintosh users, doing little that is of interest to anyone else, at our expense. Yes, we pay for the exchange of technical information about hardware we don't have, but much of it is at least marginally relevant to a system we do have: Unix. > So: have you considered using U.S./Canadian mail as an alternative to > net.{micro.att,micro.ibm-pc, etc.} yet? :-) It's cheaper than the > net, too. I would be eyeing net.micro.ibm-pc just as dubiously if it were the top newsgroup, costing us alone over $1000/year in phone bills. Especially if most of its traffic consisted of (effectively) encrypted data that could be decoded only on an IBM PC running MSDOS. Actually, there is a strong possibility that if we cut net.sources.mac, somebody else hereabouts will set up an alternate feed; several people have mentioned this to me. This would be fine by me. I have no real objection to the existence of net.sources.mac, I'd just prefer to see its users paying more of its bills. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
gig@ritcv.UUCP (Gordon Goodman) (11/06/85)
In article <314@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >Being one of the people who originally raised the rmgroup net.sources.* >issue, I'd like to clarify my position a little. > >I would like to see the net.sources.* groups become mod.sources.* >groups. I have no desire to see Mac groups taken off the net entirely, >since they provide a useful resource for Mac users, which there are a >lot of on the net I'm sure. All I want to see is a reduction in the >massive repostings, requests for repostings, postings of useless or >limited use sources, overly buggy sources, etc. from the net. As a regular viewer and user of net.sources.mac, I do agree that just cutting down on reposting will reduce the volume of this group enormously. If moderation can also cut down on posting of buggy sources, that would be excellent, too. If this helps the problem, it is worth a try...with a condition: the moderator should be knowledgeable about the mac and sympathetic to mac users. This group has provided many people with useful tools, even when the source was not posted. Gordon Goodman Rochester Institute of Technology
cmoore@amdimage.UUCP (chris moore) (11/07/85)
In article <6100@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> [net.sources.mac is highly relevant to my work, therefore...] >> I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until >> it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. Net.micro.mac and Net. >> mac.sources are useful, productive and legitimate groups and will remain so >> certainly as long as there people on the net investigating the use of the >> Macintosh in the UNIX WORK PLACE. > >Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, >and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. You are >ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using >the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but >why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I missed the beginning of this discussion, but I have to disagree with Henry's comment. Sure, there are a lot of sites not using Macintoshes, (including mine), but there are also a lot of sites not interested in religion, sports, graphics, telecommunications, or dozens of other subjects which are supported by the network. Maybe I've missed something here, but I don't see why the Macintosh group should be singled out when there are a lot of other groups that I don't care about, but I'm paying bills to move them. -- Of course we have backup tapes. Do you want last year or the year before? Chris Moore (408) 749-4692 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!amdimage!cmoore
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (11/07/85)
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology writes: >> [net.sources.mac is highly relevant to my work, therefore...] >> I have to strongly protest any attempt to limit mac.sources in any way until >> it can be shown that there are no other alternatives. .... > > Have you considered mailing floppies as an alternative? It's a LOT cheaper, > and it means that the bills are paid by you rather than by others. Mailing floppies suffers from two relatively minor problems (possible physical damage, including magnetic scrambling, and relatively long delays for non-first class mail) and one MAJOR one as compared to electronic distribution: very low connectivity. Or am I supposed to buy 1000 floppies (at $3 minimum each) and get a bulk mailing license? This is the exact reason electronic mail and computer bulletin boards are popular means for distributing personal- computer public domain software. >You are > ignoring the fact that many of the sites paying the bills are *not* using > the Macintosh in Unix-related work. It sounds like interesting stuff, but > why exactly should I pay for voluminous newsgroups related to it? Oh, phoo. NO sites are using net.(religion, movies, etc.) in their Unix-related work. Why pick on a group that IS being used? -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan Working is not a synonym for Quality.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/12/85)
> ... Sure, there are a lot of sites not using > Macintoshes, (including mine), but there are also a lot of sites > not interested in religion, sports, graphics, telecommunications, or > dozens of other subjects which are supported by the network. Maybe > I've missed something here, but I don't see why the Macintosh group > should be singled out when there are a lot of other groups that > I don't care about, but I'm paying bills to move them. Because net.sources.mac is ten times the volume (hence cost) of any of those other groups, if you ignore the "debate" groups that we don't get any more anyway. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/12/85)
> Mailing floppies suffers from ... > one MAJOR [problem] as compared to electronic distribution: very > low connectivity. Or am I supposed to buy 1000 floppies (at $3 minimum each) > and get a bulk mailing license? This is the exact reason electronic mail > and computer bulletin boards are popular means for distributing personal- > computer public domain software. Provided, of course, that you aren't paying for them. 1000 floppies at $3 each is about three months of our phone bills. Given an organized mailing scheme, the floppies could be swapped around for years. No, I am not actually seriously suggesting this as an alternative to Usenet, just pointing out that Usenet is a very expensive way to swap Macintosh software. When was the last time you contributed money to your nearest backbone site's phone bills? If the answer is "never", then maybe you should start pricing floppies just in case. > ...NO sites are using net.(religion, movies, etc.) in their > Unix-related work. Why pick on a group that IS being used? Because I've already done some heavy picking on the other groups you mention. Specifically, we don't get them any more. Incidentally, have you noticed just what fraction of net.sources.mac is actually useful material? It's not too high, by the looks of it. High time net.sources.mac was moderated. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
j@utah-cs.UUCP (J Lepreau) (12/11/85)
Those who want to get rid of the appeal of binaries in net.sources.mac merely have to post a few binhex's there which while advertised as great games trash everyone's floppies instead. Or post a terminal emulator that trashes their Unix files or more subtly compromises their system.
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (12/13/85)
In article <3569@utah-cs.UUCP> j@utah-cs.UUCP writes: >Those who want to get rid of the appeal of binaries in net.sources.mac >merely have to post a few binhex's there which while advertised as great >games trash everyone's floppies instead. Or post a terminal emulator >that trashes their Unix files or more subtly compromises their system. I assume that you are prepared to deal with the consequences of deliberately sabotaging the legitimate Unix related work of many professionals on the net who use the software as productivity tools. My administrators and yours have been alerted that there are now people on the net like you. Thank you for the warning. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (12/14/85)
> In article <3569@utah-cs.UUCP> j@utah-cs.UUCP writes: > >Those who want to get rid of the appeal of binaries in net.sources.mac > >merely have to post a few binhex's there which while advertised as great > >games trash everyone's floppies instead. Or post a terminal emulator > >that trashes their Unix files or more subtly compromises their system. > I assume that you are prepared to deal with the consequences of deliberately > sabotaging the legitimate Unix related work of many professionals on the net > who use the software as productivity tools. > My administrators and yours have been alerted that there are now people on > the net like you. Thank you for the warning. > -- > richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego > {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec [I've removed net.sources.mac from the Newsgroups: line of this followup, since this discussion is not source code. Hint hint.] There are ALREADY people like that out there; j@utah-cs was merely trying to point that out. There is an infamous utility making the rounds of the IBM PC bulletin boards which purports to be a nifty directory utility but actually (after perhaps working OK for a while) trashes your disk. Needles to say, it's available in binary only. (Sorry, I can't remember the name of it.) The trojan horse problem is one reason I *never* run stuff that I don't have sources for (unless I paid for it, in which case I have someone to sue). I don't object too much to posting binaries ALONG WITH SOURCE, for those people too cheap to buy a compiler and trusting enough to not worry about getting nailed. But binary only? I'd as soon invite some random person plucked off the subway to spend the night in my home as invite binary-only code from some random programmer to spend the night in my system. (P.S. - hi richard, remember Elton?) -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109
heuring@boulder.UUCP (Vincent Heuring) (12/18/85)
In article <248@mplvax.UUCP> rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) writes: >In article <3569@utah-cs.UUCP> j@utah-cs.UUCP writes: >>Those who want to get rid of the appeal of binaries in net.sources.mac >>merely have to post a few binhex's there which while advertised as great >>games trash everyone's floppies instead. Or post a terminal emulator >>that trashes their Unix files or more subtly compromises their system. >I assume that you are prepared to deal with the consequences of deliberately >sabotaging the legitimate Unix related work of many professionals on the net >who use the software as productivity tools. >My administrators and yours have been alerted that there are now people on >the net like you. Thank you for the warning. > richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego > {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec You miss the point, Richard. This ugliness is here, just like nuclear war, or more to the point, AIDS. And personally, I wouldn't download and run a binary without the source to peruse, anymore than I would have sex with an anonymous stranger. Vincent P. Heuring. ECE Dep't. University of Colo. Boulder boulder!heuring "Don't fool with that binary, Roger, you don't know *where* it's been."
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (12/23/85)
In article <227@boulder.UUCP> heuring@boulder.UUCP (Vincent Heuring) writes: > >You miss the point, Richard. This ugliness is here, just like nuclear >war, or more to the point, AIDS. And personally, I wouldn't download >and run a binary without the source to peruse, anymore than I would have >sex with an anonymous stranger. > >Vincent P. Heuring. ECE Dep't. University of Colo. Boulder >boulder!heuring > >"Don't fool with that binary, Roger, you don't know *where* it's been." I must have been lucky, having downloaded EVERY binary which has come over net.sources.mac during the past year. I have never had a single problem I would attribute to the bad intentions of those who posted the binary. There is too much paranoia and too little trust in the world today, there is no need to go looking for bad intentions here. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Bogus newsgroup: net.news: Move to end of .newsrc[yn^L]?