geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (10/29/85)
In article <5356@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >The common problem that I have with this is >that [net.sources.mac has] 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... ... >I would love to get rid of it. >Anyone else agree? 100% > I'm glad I left the lEast Coast. 1000% (BTW, I have take the liberty of redirecting followups to net.news.group only, which seems a more appropriate place for where this discussion has gone). -- Geoff Kuenning {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (10/29/85)
Here is one strong vote to keep mac.sources.
I use the group for my WORK which, among other things, involves looking into
the possibility of using macs as inexpensive graphics terminals etc. in
the Unix environment. Finding the MacWrite to troff converter
and the MacPaint to imagen software on the group has been helpful to my WORK.
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. If
there is a real legal problem with shareware someone is going to have to ex-
plain the existance of a lot of it at sumex-aim where I go to the trough to
get a lot of software that I either miss on the net or need to re-acquire.
A hearty thanks to those at sumex-aim. I have a feeling that this problem is
vapor-worry but whoever is responsible for taking care of these things should
probably find out for sure. When I see the volume of traffic that goes through
a lot of groups that I would have to call "entertainment" 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. This is a useful, productive and legitimate
group and will remain so certainly as long as there people on the net investi-
gating 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!rec
--
richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego
{ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!recearlw@pesnta.UUCP (Earl Wallace) (10/30/85)
I like the net.sources.mac groups because I own a Mac :-) If you want to cut news groups that are non-unix related, try these: *.bicycle *.food *.music *.politics *.singles *.wobegon *.forsale *.abortion *.apollo *.astro *.audio *.auto *.aviation *.bio *.books *.chess etc. If we removed all the non-unix newsgroups, we could end up with just a few news groups, is that what you want? No I don't think so, you want to reduce the number of garbage articles and cutting groups doesn't kill the garbage. If the volume of articles is the problem, then we must reduce the number of news groups and become a tightly controlled network. You can't allow anyone access to the USENET and expect them to obey all the rules of the net anymore than the government can expect people to drive 55mph. This is 1985 and now you must ask the question: "what is USENET supposed to be?" Is it a cheaper form of Compuserv or 'the source'? Then, it will fail because the companies, Universities, and the like, will stop footing the increasing bills to allow USENET to expand into a general cheap-o form of Compuserv. If USENET is a convenient means in which the unix community can exchange ideas, etc. on unix related issues, then we should move back towards that goal. If the news groups and subjects have no relation to unix issues in any way, shape or form, they should not be allowed -- period. No exceptions for any reason. For general bullcrap, lets build another net: BULLNET and if that fails, at least USENET won't be destroyed.
rogerh@bocklin.UUCP (11/01/85)
I'm strongly in favor of keeping net.sources.mac. My research is in user interface construction, and net.sources.mac helps. As a matter of fact, I'd also be interested in net.sources.sun -- I have a few programs that I might contribute. They run under suntools, so they would not be of general interest. Roger Hayes Dept. of Computer Science University of Arizona