RECHTIEN%DOSUNI1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Jens-Heiner Rechtien) (03/21/91)
Maarten Huisjes <mjh@cs.vu.nl> writes: [ stuff deleted ] > } -- Everyone should compress and uuencode his diff's -- > NO! > } It does account for smaller messages (which some of us will like a *LOT*) > Yes, it does, but why do you like it a *LOT* > } and it decreases network load. > No it doesn't, it increases netload. Most news programms forward there news > in compressed form (compressed news feed). Compress -> uuencode -> compress > increases the netload. > Besides you would have to uudecode and decompress the diff's before > you can decide if you want them. This small increase of netload should be tolerable. Not uuencoded sources will be munged by Bitnet (the old long line problem) and cause a *LOT* of troubles when applying the patches and/or compiling the sources. Many people have only Bitnet access (I believe), so please post compressed and uuencoded sources/patches. Jens-Heiner Rechtien <rechtien@dosuni1.bitnet>
overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) (03/22/91)
In article <48414@nigel.ee.udel.edu> RECHTIEN%DOSUNI1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Jens-Heiner Rechtien) writes: >Maarten Huisjes <mjh@cs.vu.nl> writes: >> } -- Everyone should compress and uuencode his diff's -- >> NO! I agree with Maarten. I think the rest of the world is stupid to sit here and pat BITNET people on the head. If you got a problem with your network, either fix it yourself or GO PAY IBM TO FIX IT! You're on an IBM network; don't they give you good technical support? >This small increase of netload should be tolerable. Not uuencoded sources It's not the net load that I really hate (not that I like it) -- it's the manual work I have to do to decode the postings, and the additional disk space it sucks up before I decode everything. We're talking megabytes here... It's degrading that the whole reason for the uuencoding is to help pacify an IBM creation. >Many people have only Bitnet access (I believe), Hey! Wait a minute! Don't forget about MUGNET. I believe a majority of the MUGNET sites (and there appear to be quite a few of those these days) are running MINIX, and you're obviously running MINIX.... so... go mail waltje@minixug.mugnet.org. The one thing I'm looking forwards to a Minix sources group for is to be able to stuff EVERYTHING that comes across it into a nice armor uuencoded shield so you BITNET people can quit telling the rest of us to run our networks like it's EBCDIC! **FLAME OFF** -- Glen Overby <overby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet)
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (03/25/91)
In article <9073@plains.NoDak.edu> overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) writes: >The one thing I'm looking forwards to a Minix sources group for is to be >able to stuff EVERYTHING that comes across it into a nice armor uuencoded >shield so you BITNET people can quit telling the rest of us to run our >networks like it's EBCDIC! A question that has not really come up, but perhaps will have to inevitably is whether things sent to that group should be uuencoded or not. Regardless of whether uuencoding actually saves bandwidth or not, it does have the property that a noncompressed (i.e. plaintext) file of about 80K will be rejected by the news system is being too long (> 64K), but the same compressed uuencoded file will fit in 64K. Thus NOT uuencoding requires large postings to be split in more pieces, which I think is a nuisance. If I have a single file that is 200K, I would just as soon send it as 200K, rather than having to split it and encase the pieces and number than etc just because the network prefers everything in bite-sized pieces. This should not be interpreted as an argument for uuencoding everything, but it is another factor to be considered, and one that effects everyone, not just bitnet sites. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)