alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/27/85)
In article <943@wcom.UUCP> news@wcom.UUCP (News Administrator) writes: > Let's get rid of net.sources.mac. It has never been used to >distribute _sources_, instead it's used to distribute various pieces of >ascii-encoded binary programs, most of which are the so-called 'shareware'. >This does not benefit the net as a whole... > If the Mac users are unable to post sources because they don't >all have machines that are capable of running compilers, then that is >what local users' groups are for. Shareware and binaries belong in >users' groups, and local bulletin boards, not cluttering up the net. i agree. net.sources.mac is not being used for its intended purpose. it seems silly for sites to pay big bucks to distribute binaries they can't use. remember, this is USENET, not MACNET. if you want to distribute software for the mac, create a network of macintoshes and post it there. in the meantime, you can mail floppies around or use a user's group. i'll support net.sources.mac only when i can post and distribute unix-based source code for profit on a network of macintoshes. and while we're at it... it is high time the source groups were moderated. get rid of net.sources. create mod.sources.info, which should contain a list of the most recently posted software, updated perhaps once a week or so, like the net.announce stuff. people can simply read mod.sources.info to find out if there is anything they can use in mod.sources, and can therefore avoid looking through the majority of useless garbage that currently swims around in net.sources. and if we're going to delete groups, let's get rid of net.religion. what a useless bunch of crap. net.flame was considerably more interesting. and get rid of net.philosphy or, at the very least, rename it net.rich.rosen. both of these groups are completely and totally useless. since some backbone sites (like utzoo, i believe) have already gotten rid of them without incident and seem considerably happier for it. let's put the UNIX back into USENET. alex
dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (12/02/85)
In article <7783@ucla-cs.ARPA> alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (Alex Quilici) writes: >i'll support net.sources.mac only when i can post and distribute unix-based >source code for profit on a network of macintoshes. But as you're not supposed to use USENET for personal profit that ain't allowed either. So there! >let's put the UNIX back into USENET. If you want a UNIX-only net then ALL groups should go other than net.unix.* ones. That would save a lot of money - and also make the net useless to many of us. If the net exists to serve it's present users then it should support any area of interest pertaining to computer science or the interests of people in that field (which may well include their leisure interests), so long as that interest is sufficiently widespread for those who pay the bills to feel it is justified. So argue that the Mac is too obscure and little used to justify the net carrying info/programs for it if you like (it's a view I would strongly oppose!), but don't say "If it's not UNIX then it's not USENET". You might like to know that in Europe, where each site pays a share of the backbone sites' data transmission costs, groups net.jokes, net.politics, net.pets... etc. are not considered worth paying for and so are not imported from seismo (nor is net.wine, unfortunately!), but net.mac.sources is.
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (12/02/85)
> /* Written 12:23 am Nov 27, 1985 by alex@ucla-cs.UUCP in > ccvaxa:net.news.group */ i agree. net.sources.mac is not being used > for its intended purpose. it seems silly for sites to pay big bucks to > distribute binaries they can't use. ---------- You distribute binaries you can't use because there are a lot of people on the net who CAN use them and you hope that some of those people will distribute things that THEY can't use but you can. As an exercise, define the difference between "self interest" and "enlightened self interest." [I have no particular interest in seeing your answers, but, I suppose, if it would make you feel better...] We have quite a few users here who DO use Macs, both at work and at home, and would definitely not want the distribution of useful Mac-ware do stop. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (12/07/85)
In article <3500024@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > >You distribute binaries you can't use because there are a lot of >people on the net who CAN use them and you hope that some of those >people will distribute things that THEY can't use but you can. > Well said. As a long time contributor to the net, I have supported the net for years, mailing out Unix device drivers for non-standard hardware, providing advice and information to anyone who asked and in general taking the time and effort to keep the information flowing into and out of the sites that I have been envolved with. Now I find that my Unix related work has taken me into the area of examining the usefulness of the Macintosh as a tool in the Unix environment. However, I also find that the information that I need for my Unix related work that I find in the Macintosh groups is under fire by people who complain that it is not useful to them personally. It looks to me like I had better take a good long look at the kind of people I have been supporting all these years. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec