peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/23/85)
> In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially > >since it's now #1 in volume... > > net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the > volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get > rid of it. You know, if net.sources.mac contained sources it'd sure be less likely to generate this sort of reaction. I think I've seen a total of one peice of source code in it. Fine, binhex up the resources fork, but if you're going to post to a sources group, post sources. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/26/85)
In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially >since it's now #1 in volume... I would second that. The shareware postings are of course irritating but even the non-commercial stuff bothers me. The way I see it, there's a small group of mac users who have discovered this "free" way of distributing software, namely USENET. It reminds me of the proposals to form net.peace on the basis that USENET was a good way for them to keep in touch. The common problem that I have with this is that both these interests have nothing to do with the nature of the network or its intended use, namely to support unix users. If the volume were low net.sources.mac would be much more acceptable than net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get rid of it. Anyone else agree? -- I'm glad I left the lEast Coast. Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
peter@yetti.UUCP (10/27/85)
In article <5356@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially >>since it's now #1 in volume... > >I would second that. The shareware postings are of course irritating >but even the non-commercial stuff bothers me. I can see how positive expressions of interest in news groups or topics (such as the recent support for net.internat) help sustain the net both in concept and in practice, but how does the expression of personal dislikes achieve anything except increase net traffic volume? Why should I care what Ngai likes or dislikes? (and if I do care, shouldn't net.flame be the place to get the latest bulletin on the state of his spleen? -- of course, I can't actually read net.flame here, but that's another issue.) > ... these interests have nothing to do with the nature of the >network or its intended use, namely to support unix users. It seems to me that the "nature" of the net is going to depend on what its participants want to read and what they find valuable -- which is not going to be a fixed quantity but is going to change with time. At the moment, macs and mac software are one popular topic among many; tomorrow, it may Amigas, for all I know (:-)). So what? The last phrase about "intended use" is a giveaway as to what's really going on here -- the 'original inhabitant' syndrome: we are supposed to be locked into some personal conception of the net creators or Mr. Ngai as to what it's all about. Luckily that's not the way technology works (at least in a reasonably free society). By now a lot of people are getting accounts on Unix machines or buying Unix boxes just to get access to the net. So the net no longer exists just "to support unix users"; rather Unix is a (currently indispensable) tool for the net. > Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 > ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com -- Peter H. Roosen-Runge, Department of Computer Science, York University Toronto M3J 1P3 , Ontario, Canada _____________________________________________________________________________ From a land where Lord Spencer rules -- No Admittance to Undesirable Newsgroups. _____________________________________________________________________________
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (10/28/85)
<Note to net.micro.mac and net.sources.mac readers: this is a reply to a message that appeared in net.news.group. I'm sorry about posting a non- source article to a sources newsgroup, but considering that net.bizarre was deleted without warning (even if it was mostly trash) . . . > Phil Ngai writes: >In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially >>since it's now #1 in volume... > >I would second that. The shareware postings are of course irritating >but even the non-commercial stuff bothers me. The way I see it, >there's a small group of mac users who have discovered this "free" way >of distributing software, namely USENET. It reminds me of the >proposals to form net.peace on the basis that USENET was a good way >for them to keep in touch. The common problem that I have with this is >that both these interests have nothing to do with the nature of the >network or its intended use, namely to support unix users. If the >volume were low net.sources.mac would be much more acceptable than >net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the >volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get >rid of it. > >Anyone else agree? No -- I don't agree. Shareware postings by people who stand to gain from them financially (the author(s) of the program or even its user(s) in the case of a "you get $X from registrations of copies with your serial number"-type deal) shouldn't be allowed. But leave the rest of net.sources.mac alone!!! If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly 'support unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of the mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion. None of them has anywhere near the utility of net.sources.mac. For that matter, you can probably also get rid of various non-unix newsgroups such as net.micro.pc, net.auto, net.cooks, and net.consumers while you're at it. Since there won't be any need for anything other than net.sources.* and net.unix.*, you'll have no reason not to go ahead and delete net.news.group. Now there's an idea!! Delete net.news.group. All the discussions could be held in net.bizarre (which seems like a much more appropriate place :-). -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edu
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/29/85)
> If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly 'support > unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of the > mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion... That is exactly what is being done, and that is the context in which the desirability of net.sources.mac was originally raised. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/29/85)
> It seems to me that the "nature" of the net is going to depend on what its > participants want to read and what they find valuable -- which is not going > to be a fixed quantity but is going to change with time. At the moment, > macs and mac software are one popular topic among many; tomorrow, it may > Amigas, for all I know (:-)). So what? The nature of the net is also going to depend on who's paying the bills -- "he who pays the piper calls the tune" -- and the people paying the bills are mostly Unix systems interested specifically (although not exclusively) in Unix support. > .... Luckily that's not the way technology works (at > least in a reasonably free society).... As the man who gets the phone bills for a backbone site, I assure you that there is nothing "free" about Usenet! :-) > _____________________________________________________________________________ > From a land where Lord Spencer rules -- No Admittance > to Undesirable Newsgroups. > _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ From a land where Lord Spencer pays the bills -- if you want net.flame, you can finance it yourself! _____________________________________________________________________________ P.S. I hear tales that some people in net.news.group don't seem to have realized that There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and are criticizing newsgroup cuts. I got sick of net.news.group and unsubscribed long ago, so if you want me to see it you'll have to send me mail. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (10/30/85)
> If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly > 'support unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by > getting rid of the mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and > net.religion. I agree 100% with Thomas Newton's comments. The items distributed in net.sources.mac are useful computer software which is of benefit to individuals using the computers. This includes a very large number of people who also use Unix; consider that much of that software was *developed* on Unix, using the Unix "Sumacc" development system. This is much less dubious than several thousand postings on the use of toilet paper. Although it is a slippery-slope argument, one could as easily complain about all the software distributed in net.sources that only runs on a VAX, particularly the VMS software. That "irritates" *me* probably as much as net.sources.mac irritates Messrs. Ngai and Spencer. I think if you took a survey, you'd find that most sites of any size use net.sources.mac actively. However, I don't complain about the VAX software because I know some people have to clunk and chug along on slow uniprocessor VAXes :-) and the software is of use to them. Likewise I don't think one should complain about net.sources.mac just because one doesn't happen to have one. Obviously a lot of people do, otherwise so much software wouldn't be written and distributed for it. [Note: this message was followed-up from net.micro.mac, since I don't normally read net.news.group, although I have changed the distribution back to just net.news.group, where it belongs. My apologies if the same thing has already been said there.] -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (10/30/85)
In article <6090@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly support >> unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of >> the mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion... > >That is exactly what is being done, and that is the context in which the >desirability of net.sources.mac was originally raised. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Mr Spencer, I'm sure you have the best interests of the net at heart but I must assert that net.sources.mac is used by a number of people at my organ- ization and many others at other sites that I have been communicating with regularly over the past year for legitimate UNIX related work. We are inves- tigating the use of the Macintosh as a productivity tool in the UNIX environ- ment. This group directly supports the WORK efforts of many UNIX users. If you have not as yet gotten a large volume of response to the discussion of killing the group it is because most users of the net probably don't monitor the ad- ministrative groups and don't realize that a group is on the way out until it happens. I stumbled on the fact myself. I plan, however, to take a more serious interest in the way the net is run in the future. It seems that the net has grown out of its adolescence into a more mature state that will need the support and active interest of its users if it is to be usefull in the unix work place. There must be a way to govern the creation and especially the deletion of newsgroups that better serves the unix community that depends on the net for vital information. direction -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/31/85)
In article <269@yetti.UUCP> peter@yetti.UUCP (Peter Roosen-Runge) writes: >the net both in concept and in practice, but how does the expression >of personal dislikes achieve anything except increase net traffic volume? If enough of us admins get together and decide we don't want to pay for groups like net.flame, then we'll stop carrying them and by reducing the volume of traffic, postpone the day when the net breaks down. I think this is pretty positive. >Why should I care what Ngai likes or dislikes? Why should I care if you care? I see you're posting from a Toronto site. Then you ought to care what Henry Spencer thinks. I'm just trying to influence his decision in a way he has already indicated he is leaning. >It seems to me that the "nature" of the net is going to depend on what its >participants want to read and what they find valuable And on what the people paying the phone bills want to pay for. >going on here -- the 'original inhabitant' syndrome: we are supposed >to be locked into some personal conception of the net creators or Mr. Ngai >as to what it's all about. It's not a matter of being an 'original inhabitant', it's a matter of paying THIS MONTH's phone bill. >Luckily that's not the way technology works (at >least in a reasonably free society). You are free to do what you want but not on my or Henry Spencer's machine. >By now a lot of people are >getting accounts on Unix machines or buying Unix boxes just to get access to >the net. What makes you think Henry will give you a feed that has net.flame? >So the net no longer exists just "to support unix users"; rather Unix >is a (currently indispensable) tool for the net. As long as Unix sites pay the bills there will be limitations on the non-Unix material. If you want to run your own network on a PC feel free. But don't ask us to be your relay. -- The Miami Police Department's Vice Squad has an annual budget of $1.5M. Each episode of the TV show "Miami Vice" costs $1.6M. Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor) (11/01/85)
Expires:
I agree with previous poster to net.sources.mac that it is a highly useful
group and should be allowed to survive. The vast majority of material
coming over the wires is useful for one of the main reasons for the existence
of Usenet namely EDUCATION.
A few people are using it to their own apparent financial advantage and
should be made aware of the danger to the MAC groups this causes.
Come on guys. This group and its associated group net.micro.mac is one of
the "Lights of my life" and I am sure that I am not alone. PLEASE don't spoil
the fun for a few measly dollars.
Please post more source and more examples. In my own turn I hope to do
the same when I feel that it is a genuine contribution and IT WILL NOT BE
SHAREWARE but simply shared!
--
david
... David W.Taylor, MicroPro Product Development
{dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!sagan!davidbeth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (11/01/85)
[Hear, hear! Here, here!] From: david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor), Message-ID: <170@sagan.UUCP>: >Summary: Plea for sanity and continuance of a true learning experience > >I agree with previous poster to net.sources.mac that it is a highly useful >group and should be allowed to survive. And I third that (e)motion. Keep it coming, kids. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "I once heard the remainder of a colony of ants, which had been partially obliterated by a cow's foot, seriously discussing the intentions of the gods towards their civilization." -- Archy the Cockroach
fritz@utastro.UUCP (Fritz Benedict) (11/01/85)
<munch>
Another vote for the continued existence of net.sources.mac. I and many
of my colleagues have obtained much of value from this newsgroup. These
public domain desk accessories and applications have increased my
productivity both at work and at home. Rename net.sources.mac to
appease the purists, but don't pull the plug on it.
--
Fritz Benedict (512)471-4461x448
uucp: {...noao,decvax,ut-sally}!utastro!fritz
arpa: fritz@ut-ngp
snail: Astronomy, U of Texas, Austin, TX 78712bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/02/85)
I for one would find it extremely painful not to have access to the
Macintosh software that is being posted. My productivity in my job
is greatly enhanced by it. I can live without the games, but I would
have a very hard time living without the utilities and other useful
software that I can get in NO OTHER WAY.
Some are arguing that the stuff posted to net.sources.mac doesn't
have anything to do with UNIX and that therefore net.sources.mac
should get the axe. I strongly disagree. In the first place,
95%* of what is posted to usenet doesn't have anything to do with
UNIX. And in the second, a larger proportion of the stuff
in net.sources.mac *does* relate directly to UNIX (through the
use of Macs and their peripherals in UNIX environments) than is
true of most newsgroups. So I just don't buy this idea.
Yes, phone bills are high. Yes, this is a burden on backbone
sites. Yes, we should find a way to improve the situation. But
let's do it rationally, not by throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.
------
* Rhetorical statistic :-)
--
Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP)
bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)genem@peoam.UUCP (11/04/85)
In article <170@sagan.UUCP> david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor) writes: > > > >I agree with previous poster to net.sources.mac that it is a highly useful >group and should be allowed to survive. The vast majority of material >coming over the wires is useful for one of the main reasons for the existence >of Usenet namely EDUCATION. > A few people are using it to their own apparent financial advantage and >should be made aware of the danger to the MAC groups this causes. > Come on guys. This group and its associated group net.micro.mac is one of >the "Lights of my life" and I am sure that I am not alone. PLEASE don't spoil >the fun for a few measly dollars. > Please post more source and more examples. In my own turn I hope to do >the same when I feel that it is a genuine contribution and IT WILL NOT BE >SHAREWARE but simply shared! >-- >david >... David W.Taylor, MicroPro Product Development >{dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!sagan!david ------------------------------------------------- I could not agree more. The more I use and develop on the MAC the more I am convinced it has made major new inroads into system and software implementation. Structured languages and documented programming were met with resistance. Unless we develop new concepts and are open to new concepts, we are placing our heads in the sand once again. UNIX and any other operating system can learn alot from MAC derived software. If by no other means than carrying thoughts and ideas from the MAC to their world. My single vote is that this group should be allowed to exist and that a more formal way of announcing cancellations should be devised, to insure the users of said groups are given fair warning of impending cancellation. C. Eugene Mueller District Service Manager Perkin-Elmer Corp Santa Clara Ca
hen@bu-cs.UUCP (Bill Henneman) (11/05/85)
This is probably going to cause incredible flame traffic, but what the heck. I would like to see net.xxx.sources stay around, but would like to propose that the word *sources* be interpreted in the computer science sense (i.e., stuff that goes into a compiler or assembler), not the more general common usage: ASCII text only, no binaries. This would have three side-effects: 1) the much-discussed concern over abuse of the net by for-profit shareware posters vanishes; 2) the amount of traffic to the newsgroup declines; 3) the potential for malignant trojan horse practical jokes vanishes (it hasn't been a problem here, but it has happened on some BBSs). This is a compromise solution, and it comes at some cost to the readers of the net. Nonetheless, I feel that the restricted sources group would be of value, and certainly of greater value than having the group vanish altogether. Bill Henneman Computer Research Center Boston University
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/05/85)
> Mr Spencer, I'm sure you have the best interests of the net at heart Actually, I have the survival of the local section of the net at heart. The bills are becoming unsupportable; the volume of traffic must come down. (No, compress and 2400 baud are not enough -- we already use both. The net has demonstrated a remarkable ability to outgrow such temporary fixes, and in fact to grow faster than the rate of introduction of such fixes.) > I must assert that net.sources.mac is used by a number of people at my organ- > ization and many others at other sites that I have been communicating with > regularly over the past year for legitimate UNIX related work... I am willing to believe this. Are you willing to prove it by using groups like net.sources.mac to publish things that are of use to non-Mac users, i.e. NOT JUST MAC-SPECIFIC BINARIES?!? There is little evidence of this to date. I agree that net.sources.mac directly supports the work-related efforts of many people, a fair number of them involved with Unix as well. What I don't believe, I'm afraid, is that the rest of us are getting a fair return on it. Yes, the net helps you: what have you done to return the favor? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (11/05/85)
> >In article <6081@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>I am starting to feel really hostile towards net.sources.mac, especially > >>since it's now #1 in volume... > > > >I would second that. The shareware postings are of course irritating > >but even the non-commercial stuff bothers me. The way I see it, > >there's a small group of mac users who have discovered this "free" way > >of distributing software, namely USENET. It reminds me of the > >proposals to form net.peace on the basis that USENET was a good way > >for them to keep in touch. The common problem that I have with this is > >that both these interests have nothing to do with the nature of the > >network or its intended use, namely to support unix users. If the > >volume were low net.sources.mac would be much more acceptable than > >net.peace as there would be little question of liability. But the > >volume is very high, the utility is very low, and I would love to get > >rid of it. > > Some very useful software for interfacing Macs to UNIX, e.g., macget, macput, that window program, etc. have come over net.sources.mac. The nature of the net is that there's a lot of junk on it - but there's a few gems hidden among the muck, and thats why we love it. Let's keep net.sources.mac, but maybe people could be a little more careful about postings.
royt@gatech.CSNET (Roy M Turner) (11/06/85)
In article <371@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >You know, if net.sources.mac contained sources it'd sure be less likely to >generate this sort of reaction. I think I've seen a total of one peice >of source code in it. Fine, binhex up the resources fork, but if you're >going to post to a sources group, post sources. > Well, perhaps you could recommend a language for the postings? Pascal? MSBasic? Assembler? C (and are all the C's available for the Mac compatible??)? XLISP?? As it is now, the binhex files aren't readable by humans, but they *are* usable by all MacIntosh owners (unless you have done something funky to your Mac, of course). If source is posted, then it is usable to only a small percentage of MacIntosh owners, ie, those with that particular language. If you want the source, you are probably wanting to change something in it (else you would just compile it anyway), and can ask the author of it, and if he or she wants you to have access to the source, he/she can send it to you. Roy PS--don't bother with flames, my "n" key is getting worn out! :-)
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/06/85)
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't deal with micros much except under contract. Could someone please explain what shareware and freeware are? In addition, which one was going to be named after Flugel? -Ron
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (11/06/85)
> I would like to see net.xxx.sources stay around, but would like to propose > that the word *sources* be interpreted in the computer science sense > (i.e., stuff that goes into a compiler or assembler), not the more general > common usage: ASCII text only, no binaries. But some of us don't have compilers, because we bought our machines back in the early days, and so have small macs that can't compile... -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
cag@cuuxb.UUCP (C. Gerlach) (11/08/85)
Well, I think this has gone far enough. I am getting tired of seeing this discussion being carried out in parallel in 4 or 5 newsgroups. Lets get to the bottom of this and then move it to the appropriate newsgroup so the rest of us can get on with our work. I would like to suggest that this discussion be changed from how to eliminate a newsgroup to the real problem of how sites can minimize the costs of being on the network. The current discussion of network wide censorship is counter-productive and only aggravates the problem by greatly adding to the traffic on the network. The scope of this problem may be network wide but it remains one of how each system controls its environment. Network wide solutions for individual site problems will not work since every site is different and has unique problems. It would appear that a better approach would be to examine the options each site has in managing its portion of the network (that is, the system itself and the links it has to its neighboring systems). If it becomes apparent that sites can not control themselves, lets identify the tools needed by the site's network administrator and see what can be done to get the tools built. I have to believe that these issues are being discussed in the network administration and management newsgroups. Continued discussion in other newsgroups of censorship and threatened network wide removal does little to foster rational thinking. And misses the main issue. Lets attack the real problem and stop arguing amongst ourselves. Its not a question of which groups have to go, but of network management and control at the individual site level. Now that I've said my piece, I apologize to anyone I may have offended. And as usual these are my own thoughts. No one else would want them. Chuck Gerlach ...!ihnp4!cuuxb!cag
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/09/85)
>In article <6090@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>> If your criterion for eliminating a group is that it doesn't directly support >>> unix users' but that it has a high volume, you can start by getting rid of >>> the mega-flamage nets such as net.flame, net.politics, and net.religion... >> >>That is exactly what is being done, and that is the context in which the >>desirability of net.sources.mac was originally raised. >>-- >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >> {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry > >Mr Spencer, I'm sure you have the best interests of the net at heart but I >must assert that net.sources.mac is used by a number of people at my organ- >ization and many others at other sites that I have been communicating with >regularly over the past year for legitimate UNIX related work. We are inves- >tigating the use of the Macintosh as a productivity tool in the UNIX environ- >ment. This group directly supports the WORK efforts of many UNIX users. As I have pointed out privately to Henry Spencer, the fact that one works USING a UNIX system does not mean that one works WITH or ON the UNIX system. There are many of us whose work benefits from the net news who could not care less if unix-wizards and such groups were dumped. Net.politics provides a mine of sociological information, and is a lot more valuable. Net.sources.mac provides occasional gems, without which our work would be appreciably harder. The net is a communications medium among people of widely varying interests, but the ones who control the dissemination of newsgroups are typically UNIX wizards who often seem to feel that only UNIX-related stuff has any value. There's not much the rest of us can do but say "please think of the rest of us". And, as I wrote to Henry, we can offer to pay some of the costs personally, if the institution won't. There are enough people reading the news that a small subscription from each reader should more than cover the costs incurred by the local institutions (especially the one covering the long-distance charges). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (11/20/85)
Martin Taylor points out that users could personally pay their fair share of costs to local sites. I don't know how well this will go over with other avid readers of/posters to nontechnical groups, but I'm willing to pay up to double my fair share. I am a semi-major contributor to some of the groups that people have suggested cutting (not net.flame however), and I'd hate to see them go. I think another thing worth trying is asking the biggest posters to voluntarily limit their contributions. I've seen lots of needless included text in some of these newsgroups, for example; it could be dropped relatively painlessly. --Paul V. Torek, the blooming iconoclast and once and future "top 25" news submitter (something I hope to achieve by having the others come down to my level!) torek@umich (313)996-2396