[net.news] New Groups -- Why All The Fuss?

wmartin@brl-vgr.UUCP (05/08/84)

Every time I see a flurry of articles about why there should or shouldn't be
a new subgroup, like "net.music.classical" or "net.tv.soaps", I am
amazed that there should be such vehement discussion. Once the group
itself is established (in these cases, "net.music" and "net.tv"), why
shouldn't there be any subgroups desired? Let them spring up, wither
away, or continue as chance (and current interest) dictates. After all,
if it is OK to have a "net.tv.drwho", how can you argue against any
other subgroup? 

There isn't THAT much overhead involved in a subgroup's existence,
is there? If the powers-that-be allow "net.tv" on their segments
of USENET, and don't restrict traffic to "work-related" news, adding
"net.tv.something" subgroups means little. If "net.tv" itself isn't
allowed, "net.tv.anything" won't be either, right? So that has NO
effect is this case.

I can see much more justifiability in arguments about new GROUPS.
Subgroups don't have the same weight.

(I do recall discussions from over a year ago about how the .newsrc file
could only be so long, or a line in it had to be under a certain length.
These are all moot now, due to better software, right? Otherwise,
that could be a valid argument limiting the number of subgroups.)

Will

alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (05/11/84)

	``There isn't that much overhead in a news group, is there?''

The following quotation shows that the author either is unaware
of all the past discussion on the topic he brings up or has just
ignored it.  There is overhead in a group.  There can only be
a certain number of groups (511 to be exact; it's the maximum
number of lines in the .newsrc file minus one (for the options
line)).  Also, each additional group in the active file just
makes the linear search of that file take longer.  For small,
unused, dead groups, it isn't worth the extra time.  A directory
is used in the spool area, using up space and an i-node (both
of which are in short supply on my machines).  We now have some
268 groups here (including local ones), and at the rate the
number is growing, 511 is just around the corner.  So lets 
have less of these little dead groups that aren't needed,
huh?