malloy@ittral.UUCP (William P. Malloy) (11/02/85)
Posted to the newsgroup mod.newslists, there is a monthly set of articles by
Rick Adams at site ``siesmo'' in which he keeps track of the network traffic
flow. As of last month this was the latest information. NOTE: net.sources.mac
was first accounting for 9.0% of the entire net, net.micro.mac is fourth and
takes up 3.6% of the volume of the entire network.
% of
RANK total
1 877.6 61 27.42 9.0% 9.0% net.sources.mac (2.8)
4 354.1 251 11.07 3.6% 23.7% net.micro.mac (1.8)
% of total volume of USENET 12.6%
So all together this MAC stuff takes up OVER 1/8th of the entire USENET for
a small, insignificant, closed architecture, slow, personal computer. Not
only that NO one at my site even has a MAC! If you all like reading this
volume so much, why don't you set up your own net and/or join CompuServe and
pay your own bills.
How can anyone do "real" work on a machine you can't really GET at. It must
be like trying to play the piano wearing boxing gloves. I feel sorry for you.
=William P. Malloy
--
Address: William P. Malloy, ITT-BSG, B & CC Engineering Group, Raleigh NC
{mcnc, ihnp4!burl, ncsu, decvax!ittatc}!ittral!malloylampson@crvax1.DEC (Mike Lampson - Loc/MS:DDO - DTN 423-6141) (11/07/85)
William P. Malloy ...!decvax!ittatc!ittral!malloy ... writes > Subject: A short explanation as to why people object to net.*.mac > Posted to the newsgroup mod.newslists, there is a monthly set of articles by > Rick Adams at site ``siesmo'' in which he keeps track of the network traffic > flow. As of last month this was the latest information. NOTE: net.sources.mac > was first accounting for 9.0% of the entire net, net.micro.mac is fourth and > takes up 3.6% of the volume of the entire network. > % of > RANK total > 1 877.6 61 27.42 9.0% 9.0% net.sources.mac (2.8) > 4 354.1 251 11.07 3.6% 23.7% net.micro.mac (1.8) >% of total volume of USENET 12.6% > > So all together this MAC stuff takes up OVER 1/8th of the entire USENET for > a small, insignificant, closed architecture, slow, personal computer. > > Address: William P. Malloy, ITT-BSG, B & CC Engineering Group, Raleigh NC > {mcnc, ihnp4!burl, ncsu, decvax!ittatc}!ittral!malloy The large volume of net.*.mac should show how valuable these groups are to a relatively large part of the net. I don't think that an insignificant number of people could generate this many postings to net.*.mac. Also, there is not that much reposting going on in net.sources.mac these days (at least the last 4-5 months [long before this debate started]). There are a lot of requests for "missing postings", but these are usually mailed to the person who did not get them. Disclaimer: These options are my own are in no way represent those of Digital Equipment Corporation or Northwestern University. Mike Lampson UUCP: {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!lampson ARPA: LAMPSON%CRVAX1.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM -or- MIK05755%northwestern.MAILNET@MIT-MUILTICS.ARPA ... the net isn't just for UN*X anymore ...
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (11/08/85)
> The large volume of net.*.mac should show how valuable these groups > are to a relatively large part of the net. The volume says nothing about how large a part of the net use the groups. > I don't think that an insignificant number of people could generate this > many postings to net.*.mac. But they can and do. Take a look at the Rick Adam's statistics for the past few months. The mac stuff has been top group (measured by total volume not number of articles). At the same time the top 25 sites and top 25 users lists show that one or two places/people posted most of that volume. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.UUCP, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{decwrl,ucbvax}!sun!saber!msc, ...{amdcad,ihnp4}!saber!msc