bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/04/89)
Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge
percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.*.
When I get into comp.sys.att (second in order in my .newsrc), I find
myself virtually wearing out the 'n' key. (An intuitive guess is that fully
70% of the comp.sys.att traffic that I see arriving here is cross-posted
stuff from unix-pc.*).
I know there has been some discussion of this in the past - why has it been
decided to leave the unix-pc group a non-standard group not to be carried
routinely in the standard feed? Who benefits - and how?
Bud Hovell
USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin}
USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035
MOTD: "Vote NO!"lenny@icus.islp.ny.us (Lenny Tropiano) (07/05/89)
In article <674@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: |>Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge |>percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.*. |>When I get into comp.sys.att (second in order in my .newsrc), I find |>myself virtually wearing out the 'n' key. (An intuitive guess is that fully |>70% of the comp.sys.att traffic that I see arriving here is cross-posted |>stuff from unix-pc.*). |> I have unix-pc.* first also in my .newsrc file. With rn compiled with the DOXREFS option turned on, you shouldn't have this problem. If the article was READ, JUNKED, KILLED, etc.. in a previous group, and it is properly cross-posted to another (later group), you will not see it there. Of course if you leave it marked as unread, you'll have no choice in seeing it again later (if it is cross-posted). I suggest recompiling rn, that should save your "n" key... |>I know there has been some discussion of this in the past - why has it been |>decided to leave the unix-pc group a non-standard group not to be carried |>routinely in the standard feed? Who benefits - and how? |> unix-pc distribution is a very specific distribution, as you already know ... It is being carried by almost any large "backbone" (uunet, rutgers, att, etc..) site. Many other nodes also carry it. For those who don't get it, and want it, they should talk to their news feeds (most likely they can get it if they try...) I've always been willing to feed those people who have Trailblazers (call me at my office 516-589-7930, see network maps for node alps ...), and I'm sure others would be willing to volunteer feeding this small amount off traffic unix-pc.* generates. -Lenny -- Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems [w] +1 (516) 589-7930 lenny@icus.islp.ny.us Telex; 154232428 ICUS [h] +1 (516) 968-8576 {ames,talcott,decuac,hombre,pacbell,sbcs}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny ICUS Software Systems -- PO Box 1; Islip Terrace, NY 11752
gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) (07/05/89)
In article <674@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes (not necessarily in the following order): > ...why has it been decided to leave the unix-pc group a non-standard group > not to be carried routinely in the standard feed? Who benefits - and how? Well, I won't offer any justification for the two groups, except to offer the explanation that comp.sys.att is intended for *all* varieties of machines manufactured and sold by AT&T (including 3Bx, 6836, etc.), whereas the unix-pc newsgroup is solely for the UNIXpc (7300 / 3B1). I suspect that, due to the limited number of folks out there who have the UNIXpc relative to other types of computers, many, if not most, backbone sites don't consider it worth their while (read phone costs and disk space) to carry unix-pc.* newsgroups. > Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge > percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.*. > When I get into comp.sys.att (second in order in my .newsrc), I find > myself virtually wearing out the 'n' key... Well, I don't think cross-posting is inherently a bad thing, since (at least under UNIX implementations of the network news software) cross-postings are implemented by means of links, so no extra disk space is utilized. The benefits of cross-postings include the fact that they can achieve a wider distribution for certain articles whose subject matter straddle the categ- ories defined by existing newsgroups. I'd say that, if you're having to use the 'n' key to avoid re-reading articles, your news-reading software needs to be tweaked to recognize the fact that a given article has already been read. I recall that when I first installed rn on my machine (10/87), I had to make some slight modifications to the code to get cross-postings to be dealt with correctly. Now that I look at the code again, it seems my problem had to do with the processing of the "Xref" line in message headers. For some reason, my site name was, at that time - at least, not being placed on Xref lines, so I ifdef'd out the code starting at line 402 in bits.c: #if 0 if (strNE(tmpbuf,inews_site)) { #ifdef DEBUGGING if (debug) printf("Xref not from %s--ignoring\n",inews_site) FLUSH; #endif I dunno if that's your problem, but the point is that the news reader should mark messages as read the first time they're encountered in any newsgroup, so that you'll not be bothered with them a second time when you're reading other newsgroups to which such articles have been cross-posted. Good luck! -- Gary S. Trujillo {linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {icus,ima,stech,wjh12}!gnosys!gst
vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) (07/06/89)
In article <674@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge > percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.*. > When I get into comp.sys.att (second in order in my .newsrc), I find > myself virtually wearing out the 'n' key. (An intuitive guess is that fully > 70% of the comp.sys.att traffic that I see arriving here is cross-posted > stuff from unix-pc.*). > > I know there has been some discussion of this in the past - why has it been > decided to leave the unix-pc group a non-standard group not to be carried > routinely in the standard feed? Who benefits - and how? > Bud: The reason you have to pour over so many unix-pc postings is that these groups are poorly distributed and in order to get to many of us, the posters are kind enough to cross post. In fact, I can't post except through comp.sys.att. I also would like to know why distribution of the unix-pc group is so difficult to come by. I have been trying for the last year to get it here. Assuredly, someone in the Denver area does receive it since 'boulder' is a backbone site. The system administrator at 'scicom' informed me a couple of months ago that he had found a source for it. I know he is trying to help me but there seems to be an aversion of some sort elsewhere to providing full distribution. As yet, I haven't received anything which has not been cross posted. Last week, I sent out a request on 'unix-pc.test' for anyone to respond if they received the message. So far there have been no responses. My guess is that it never got onto the net. The result is that people like you, who have no interest in the unix-pc, but are interested in other discussions on comp.sys.att have to grope through our activities. I don't know why the distribution system falls down when the administrators need only add 'unix-pc,' to the '/usr/lib/news/sys' file. Surely this is not a heavy load when they do forward so many "junk" groups. I have been wondering about suggesting that the group names be changed so that it starts with 'comp.xxxx'. Since this is already an entry in the '/usr/lib/news/sys' file, we could all benefit. Perhaps even some of our European friends could then join in on the discussions. That is, if the full 'comp.' distribution is carried over there. Next time I'll really get on my soap-box. :-) -- Vernon C. Hoxie {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern 3975 W. 29th Ave. voice: 303-477-1780 Denver, Colo., 80212 ( TB+ ) uucp: 303-455-2670
woods@eci386.UUCP (07/07/89)
In article <240@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes: > In article <674@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes > (not necessarily in the following order): > > Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge > > percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.*. > > When I get into comp.sys.att (second in order in my .newsrc), I find > > myself virtually wearing out the 'n' key... > > Well, I don't think cross-posting is inherently a bad thing, since (at least > under UNIX implementations of the network news software) cross-postings are > implemented by means of links, so no extra disk space is utilized. The > benefits of cross-postings include the fact that they can achieve a wider > distribution for certain articles whose subject matter straddle the categ- > ories defined by existing newsgroups. That's not the point! Since rn doesn't go get the message id's for the articles you have read when it starts, assuming it could, you can easily end up re-reading things if you don't have the luxury of being able to leave one rn running for the entire day. I often read groups several at a time, then do other things. Rn simply cannot do Xref matching when you start and stop it between groups, and I don't think it should either! I don't see how wider distribution of unix-pc stuff will help, when most of those who are interested already get the unix-pc groups, and those who don't should. It only serves to over-clutter comp.sys.att with a real mess of stuff which most comp.sys.att only readers don't want to see. (I read both groups!) Cross-posting *_IS_* inherently bad when it clutters up other groups. That's why we have groups in the first place. Perhaps unix-pc.general should be renamed comp.sys.att.unix-pc, but remain on the "alternate newsgroups" list. This might help prevent some of the useless clutter. PLEASE do not cross-post Unix PC related articles to comp.sys.att! -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET} +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] Toronto, Ontario CANADA
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (07/08/89)
In article <1989Jul7.052540.7258@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: | |That's not the point! Since rn doesn't go get the message id's |for the articles you have read when it starts, assuming it could, |you can easily end up re-reading things if you don't have the |luxury of being able to leave one rn running for the entire day. |I often read groups several at a time, then do other things. Rn |simply cannot do Xref matching when you start and stop it between |groups, and I don't think it should either! The version of rn I use does better than that. For each article read, and for each Xref matched, it updates my .newsrc for the xref-ed newsgroups. When I get to those groups, the already seen articles don't show up -- and this lasts over quitting and restarting rn. It even marks articles in unsubscribed newsgroups, so if I resubscribe I still don't see them again. Sample .newsrc line-- misc.consumers! 1-16426,16524,16532,16539,16613,16628,16631,16642,16646,16663,16669,16679,16687,16696 Three exceptions to this eminently useful feature: The c[atch-up] command does not affect .newsrc, so articles passed in this way can yet be seen. A slower alternative which does get rid of the articles in all their incarnations is "/^/j". The #*@&!'s who post articles individually to N newsgroups. Of course, no Xref is generated, so I can't avoid seeing the articles multiple times. Subscribing to a new group: All articles are unread -- rn doesn't try to go back and see what may have been previously seen. I think we are running rn 2.11. /JBL = UUCP: levin@bbn.com (new) or {backbone}!bbn!levin (old) INTERNET: levin@bbn.com POTS: (617) 873-3463 "Earn more sessions by sleeving."
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (07/08/89)
In article <42398@bbn.COM> levin@BBN.COM I screwed up: |I think we are running rn 2.11. Actually, the 'v' commands gives @(#)$Header: rn.c,v 4.3.1.4 85/09/10 11:05:13 lwall Exp $ = UUCP: levin@bbn.com (new) or {backbone}!bbn!levin (old) INTERNET: levin@bbn.com POTS: (617) 873-3463 "Earn more sessions by sleeving."
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (07/08/89)
In article <171@zebra.UUCP> vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes: >I also would like to know why distribution of the unix-pc group is so >difficult to come by. I have been trying for the last year to get it here. I can't answer this question, but to the best of my knowledge, many/all unix-pc sites are willing to establish connections. I set up two extra connections locally just to provide extra distribution for unix-pc.*. I also mail the contents of most of the unix-pc groups to sites that can not receive the newsgroups, and have been doing this for well over a year. At any rate, I am still willing to provide the groups via email, and am also willing to provide UUCP connections to any site that is either local or is willing to dial in. I have a Trailblazer+ and calculated that for the about 15 days of unix-pc.* in my /usr/spool/news (550K) it would take a little over 11 minutes of phone time to transfer the whole pile. So, for just a few $$ a month, sites anywhere in the country could pick it up; it's even cheaper than UUNET :-) -- Scott Hazen Mueller| scott@zorch.UU.NET (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott 685 Balfour Drive | (408) 298-6213 |Send mail to fusion-request@zorch.UU.NET San Jose, CA 95111 |No dsclmr, my cmptr|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (07/08/89)
[And yes, I see that that the followup-to is set to unix-pc.general, which I will not circumvent, even though I think this is a topic that really DOES merit the views of the comp.sys.att readers as well. Bleah.] >I don't see how wider distribution of unix-pc stuff will help, when >most of those who are interested already get the unix-pc groups, and >those who don't should. I'm not sure this is a valid statement. It's too basic. For years, I've seen a lot of "I don't get unix-pc.*" _along_with_ "I CAN'T get unix-pc.*". Those that don't get it can get it if they knew how. Maybe. It's not a clean cut one way or another type of situation. >with a real mess of stuff which most comp.sys.att only readers don't >want to see. (I read both groups!) Cross-posting *_IS_* inherently >bad when it clutters up other groups. That's why we have groups in >the first place. And unix-pc.*, not carried in the main stream news groups, isn't solving the problem apparently. >Perhaps unix-pc.general should be renamed comp.sys.att.unix-pc, but >remain on the "alternate newsgroups" list. This might help prevent >some of the useless clutter. Crossposting would still likely occur, but at least some of it would move to comp.sys.att.unix-pc. Of course, we should all realize that not all of it would... >PLEASE do not cross-post Unix PC related articles to comp.sys.att! Sigh. This continual perennial argument, as well as the crossposting that always inspires it, will continue until the end of time until somehow it is solved. It's not at all fair to ask "don't crosspost UnixPC articles" when so many people, for whatever reason (in or out of their control) can't get unix-pc.* Neither is it "efficient" to post everything to both realms. So, what's the solution? Everyone just quiet down and accept reality, or create a unix-pc off of comp.sys.att to satisfy those that just don't care (Which I also think is unfortunate, because the information provided by and to UnixPC owners/users is also of value to the "others". (UnixPC people are not lepers, either.)) When it comes to software, many of the issues are of global nature. When it comes to hardware, that's a different issue, but that also applies to 3b2, 6386, 3b15 ... (ad infinitum). One hopes those issues could be considered at posting time... -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@cs.umn.edu __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "I'll just go bang my head on a wall & figure out why I abuse myself so much"
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/09/89)
In article <171@zebra.UUCP> vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes: >In article <674@whizz.uucp>, I wrote: >> Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge >> percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.*. >> When I get into comp.sys.att (second in order in my .newsrc), I find >> myself virtually wearing out the 'n' key. (An intuitive guess is that fully >> 70% of the comp.sys.att traffic that I see arriving here is cross-posted >> stuff from unix-pc.*). I was being most conservative in stating 70%. > The reason you have to pour over so many unix-pc postings is >that these groups are poorly distributed and in order to get to many of >us, the posters are kind enough to cross post. In fact, I can't post >except through comp.sys.att. That was the main point - alot of people CANNOT GET the unix-pc groups in their local area. Having to set up a special feed in order to get it is plain damn nonsense when it constitutes the majority volume of another group (att) that is routinely carried as a standard feed. Likewise, some people CANNOT POST to the unix-pc groups, having only comp.sys.att provided locally. For example, I have two feeds for unix-pc groups: one of them gets his by a direct connection to *California*, the other by a connection to a machine in *Texas* (if we haven't cross-fed to him already). We are, please observe, in *******Oregon*********!! (For those of you from the East Coast, you may want to drag out your Hammond's in order to understand just what kind of distances are involved here: If you happen to live in the D.C. area, for example, this would be about comparable to calling Chicago or Texas, respectively, from there). > I also would like to know why distribution of the unix-pc group >is so difficult to come by. I have been trying for the last year to get >it here. Assuredly, someone in the Denver area does receive it >since 'boulder' is a backbone site. I wouldn't count on it. Logic won't get you very far, based one what I've observed. Hey, no problem - I'll be glad to give you a feed. According to the idea we seem to live by, long distance from Portland (Oregon) to Denver is no big deal (about the same as routinely calling Miami to get *your* unix-pc stuff, if you live in New York City :-). > The result is that people like you, who have no interest in the >unix-pc, but are interested in other discussions on comp.sys.att have to >grope through our activities. Umm, well, actually, my machine is a 3B1. But the point I was making is the same, either way: the redundancy is almost painfully absurd, generating consequences that are wholey unnecessary. > I don't know why the distribution system falls down when the >administrators need only add 'unix-pc,' to the '/usr/lib/news/sys' file. >Surely this is not a heavy load when they do forward so many "junk" groups. Yes - I believe that traffic level should dictate whether a group is to be carried on the standard feed. If, for example, the unix-pc stuff were *not* carried in the comp.sys.att group, unix-pc would be carried as a standard feed and 'att' would be an 'alt' group, since (absent the unix-pc stuff) it would be carrying so little traffic of it's own. And I agree - if the choice is between talk.valspeak.bizarre and our group, that's a no-brainer. Unless, of course, t.v.b has alot of traffic :-). > I have been wondering about suggesting that the group names be >changed so that it starts with 'comp.xxxx'. Since this is already an Precisely. But probably too easy a solution. >entry in the '/usr/lib/news/sys' file, we could all benefit. Perhaps even >some of our European friends could then join in on the discussions. >That is, if the full 'comp.' distribution is carried over there. When I hear people defend the current practice of treating the upc group as an elective appendage to the net distribution, I am reminded of the old line: "We won't get wet - I've got a raincoat!". If it isn't a problem for them, then it simply doesn't warrant change. Someone recently pointed out that computer-industry 'standards' are defined not by standards-committees, but by market-share. Why shouldn't this logic hold for defining usenet groups? Can someone summon any reasonable argument why a group that is official should get preferential distribution even when it generates almost no output? And unofficial groups that are weighing in consistently with solid traffic should be ignored? For example, my current .newsrc file gives: unix-pc.bugs: 1-17 unix-pc.general: 1-1106 unix-pc.sources: 1-108 unix-pc.test: 1-10 unix-pc.uucp: 1-42 unix-pc.misc: (this one was lost for awhile :-) ----------------------------------------------- Total unix-pc: 1-1283 comp.sys.att: 1-1393 This yields 92% potential cross-posting (not scientific, but you get the idea). In any case, unix-pc, order of magnitude, is *as large* as comp.sys.att, even *including* the cross-postings! That is to say that without unix-pc, little else may remain in att, AT ALL! I'll bet that our tiny band of trusty devotees to the Unix PC are a hell of a lot more-active than some other groups that are mindlessly passed on across the net every day, and won't ever create enough total volume to wad a shotgun. ^^^^ I propose that there be two surviving groups, with another a casualty: comp.sys.upc - all unix-pc, sans other att stuff. comp.sys.att - give this empty artifact a quiet burial unless AT&T is willing to put on staffers to write stuff to post in order to keep up the ol' corporate image. Fact is, little else happens here. comp.sys.misc - move any tailings of 'att' to the misc group, which itself isn't exactly a barn-burner. Together, they might be able to form a combined entity of sufficient size to propogate :-). Wouldn't there be a certain ripe justice if the Unix PC were sticking it up AT&T's all-too-capacious orifice, rather than vice-versa? The worm turns :-) Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/09/89)
In article <157@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >In article <171@zebra.UUCP> vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes: >>I also would like to know why distribution of the unix-pc group is so >>difficult to come by. I have been trying for the last year to get it here. > >I can't answer this question, but to the best of my knowledge, many/all unix-pc >sites are willing to establish connections. I set up two extra connections <deleted: explanation of arrangements for possible news-feed of unix-pc groups> Scott - and any others of you out there who so generously provide support to other Unix PC sites who want the newsgroups and cannot get them locally: I want to be clear in my fundamental question about this subject: why are we setting up an ALTERNATE network? Having a Trailblazer is nice - do you think *most* sites have that capability? Is that the price that is expected in order to gain routine access? Does one have to buy a Magic Decoder Ring and learn the secret handshake, also? This is starting to sound like a Mason's meeting, not a libertarian forum for sharing of information. Look. Either you define the validity of moving this group to the main newsfeed based on: * NUMBER OF READERS, or...... * VOLUME OF TRAFFIC I remain unconvinced (but willing to be) that *many* of the official groups out there in Netland would *not* qualify to be continued on *either* basis, if you applied *either* of these criteria. And by the same token, I'd guess that by those criteria, the unix-pc group(s) would weigh in as far more qualified than some of the groups now routinely carried. In other words, the continuance of the status of this group as an off-brand, tough-to-get service cannot *possibly* be based on similarity of treatment to other groups that no one even questions should be in the official feed. So what *is* the basis for this approach? Is there something going on here that I should be reading between the lines and have missed altogether? Should we be cross-posting not only to comp.sys.att,but also to alt.sex.s&m? Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/09/89)
In article:
Subject: Re: Too much cross-posting?
Message-ID: <1989Jul7.052540.7258@eci386.uucp>
by:
woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
He states:
" I don't see how wider distribution of unix-pc stuff will help, when
most of those who are interested already get the unix-pc groups, and
those who don't should. It only serves to over-clutter comp.sys.att
with a real mess of stuff which most comp.sys.att only readers don't
want to see. (I read both groups!) Cross-posting *_IS_* inherently
bad when it clutters up other groups. That's why we have groups in
the first place.
Perhaps unix-pc.general should be renamed comp.sys.att.unix-pc, but
remain on the "alternate newsgroups" list. This might help prevent
some of the useless clutter.
PLEASE do not cross-post Unix PC related articles to comp.sys.att!
"
Bushwa! I'll say it again: BUSHWA!
From a cursory examination of the comp.sys.att articles arriving here at
PORTAL, it's clear that about 50% are related to the UNIXPC/3B1/7300, and
the remaining 50% are divided between the 6300/6310/6312/6386 and the other
3B2 systems.
Private email I've received clearly indicates that MOST of the people who
NEED to receive the unix-pc.* groups are not receiving them, and they're
extremely thankful FOR the cross-postings to comp.sys.att from unix-pc.*
Three cases in point:
1) the WD2010 chip group buy I'm organizing. 85% of the responses arrived
from people who ONLY saw it on comp.sys.att
2) Most (if not all) of Europe is NOT receiving unix-pc.*; my contact in
Brussels writes that his receipt of unix-pc material is ONLY via the
comp.sys.att newsgroup (ref. Jim Sanchez at Sytek).
3) Clearly 90% of the "Thanks!" email I received for my recent posting of the
new s4diag UNIXPC diagnostics came from people who ONLY could get it from
comp.sys.att.
The volume of postings to BOTH comp.sys.att and the unix-pc.* groups do NOT
warrant further discussion of restriction/polarization/etc; there simply
aren't that many articles. I can store more than an average weeks' worth of
postings to both groups on a single 5-1/4" floppy (400Kbytes).
I personally prefer that all UNIXPC-related material be only in the unix-pc.*
newsgroups, but the reality of the situation shows that MANY users would
unduly suffer (by being left out) if we followed Greg A. Woods' suggestion.
*MY* suggestion is that ALL unix-pc.* material be cross-posted to comp.sys.att
and for people to fix their brain-damaged mail readers. Worst case is for
someone to simply type an "n"; are the lazy readers out there THAT calorie
conscious re: burning 1/2 calorie moving one's index finger? :-) Sheesh,
are people that unable to cope with the vagaries of Usenet? We're NOT talking
about cretin-JJ "Puh-LEEZE HELP ME!" postings; we're talking about postings
and responses from people who have legitimate questions, concerns and answers
about their computing investment.
Lest we forget: the UNIXPC *IS* an AT&T product. Activity surrounding the
UNIXPC has been growing by leaps and bounds during the past 18 months, far
more so than with the 6300 family. As an elected officer of the Northern
California AT&T Computer Users' Group, I *SEE* the evidence.
The comp.sys.att newsgroup is for the benefit of ALL users/owners/operators
of AT&T equipment, and the evidence I've seen is that over 85% of the UNIXPC
owners/users are unable to receive the unix-pc.* newsgroups. And for those
who don't know, there are four: unix-pc.general, unix-pc.sources, unix-pc.uucp,
and unix-pc.bugs.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) (07/10/89)
In article <1989Jul7.052540.7258@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > In article <240@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes: > > In article <674@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes > > > Over the past several months, I've become increasingly aware of the huge > > > percentage of articles which cross-post between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.* > > > > Well, I don't think cross-posting is inherently a bad thing... > > That's not the point! Since rn doesn't go get the message id's > for the articles you have read when it starts, assuming it could, > you can easily end up re-reading things if you don't have the > luxury of being able to leave one rn running for the entire day. > I often read groups several at a time, then do other things. Rn > simply cannot do Xref matching when you start and stop it between > groups, and I don't think it should either! I find myself able to enter and exit rn at will, and never find myself being presented with a cross-posted article that I have already read in another group from the one I am currently reading. In fact, I just performed a little experiment to find out whether the fact of cross-posted articles having been read is kept track of in one's .newsrc, and find that it is - at least in the version of rn I'm using. The experiment was conducted by making a copy of my .newsrc in a temp file, entering rn, reading an article in comp.sys.att that I knew to be cross-posted to unix-pc.general, exiting rn, and diffing the temp file against the new contents of .newsrc. The results are conclusive: the article numbers for the cross-posted article were added to the list of already- read articles in both groups. These results are consistent with, and in fact explain why I am able to exit and re-enter rn without having the problem you describe. Perhaps you need to recompile rn, as suggested by Lenny Tropiano in his article of 5 July (Message-ID: <735@icus.islp.ny.us>, quoted without permission :-) : | I have unix-pc.* first also in my .newsrc file. With rn compiled with | the DOXREFS option turned on, you shouldn't have this problem. If the | article was READ, JUNKED, KILLED, etc.. in a previous group, and it is | properly cross-posted to another (later group), you will not see it there. | Of course if you leave it marked as unread, you'll have no choice in | seeing it again later (if it is cross-posted). | | I suggest recompiling rn, that should save your "n" key... As to the specific value of cross-postings between comp.sys.att and unix-pc.general, I feel that it's probably the best we can do under present circumstances, given that unix-pc.* newsgroups are not uni- versally received, and it does seem worthwhile to include folks in discussions of the UNIXpc who would otherwise not be able to participate. Maybe the real solution would be to take up Greg's suggestion to create a newsgroup under the "comp" hierarchy devoted to the UNIXpc. Is there someone out there willing to make a formal proposal and manage a "call- for-vote" process? Any comments from those not receiving unix-pc.* newsgroups? -- Gary S. Trujillo {linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {icus,ima,stech,wjh12}!gnosys!gst
john@zygot.UUCP (John Higdon) (07/10/89)
In article <688@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > Look. Either you define the validity of moving this group to the main newsfeed > based on: What defines "main newsfeed"? After routinely reading about UNIX-PCs in comp.sys.att, this meta-discussion of crossposting appeared. I hadn't paid any attention the unix-pc in the newsgroups line until then. Discovering that the unix-pc.* groups didn't appear in my active file, I found out from scott@zorch what their names were and duly inserted them. Voila! A short time later, unix-pc articles appear from my main newsfeed. This very article came in on the following path: zygot!dlb!amdahl!apple!ames!lll-winken!pacbell!safari!whizz!bbh Looks pretty mainstream to me. Lot of VAXEN up there; not many 3b1s. So now, what's all this about the groups being hard-to-get? -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/10/89)
In article <171@zebra.UUCP> vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes:
I also would like to know why distribution of the unix-pc group is
so difficult to come by. I have been trying for the last year to
get it here.
You're welcome to a feed of unix-pc if you're willing to call
Columbus, Ohio regularly - 1200, 2400, or TB+. Most other unix-pc
sites are happy to offer feeds as well. It's not that hard to come
by, you just didn't ask widely enough.
I have been wondering about suggesting that the group names be
changed so that it starts with 'comp.xxxx'. Since this is already
an entry in the '/usr/lib/news/sys' file, we could all benefit.
If you want to create new newsgroups in the standard heirarchy, you'll
need to propose them and hold a vote, as usual. I suspect they won't
succeed, since there's already a thriving unix-pc distribution
available to everyone who wants it. Changing distributions just to
achieve wider coverage is generally frowned upon.bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/10/89)
In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
...over 85% of the UNIXPC owners/users are unable to receive the
unix-pc.* newsgroups.
Bushwa! They may be unwilling, but they're certainly not unable.
Anyone who would like a unix-pc feed can have one for the asking.
Drop me a line.bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/10/89)
In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Private email I've received clearly indicates that MOST of the people who >NEED to receive the unix-pc.* groups are not receiving them, and they're >extremely thankful FOR the cross-postings to comp.sys.att from unix-pc.* Made necessary *ONLY* because the unix-pc group(s) do not receive standard distribution. If they did, 100% of the people who wanted to read it(them) would be able to do so if they were a usenet subscriber. An increase in readership of 667%, if your estimates (below) are accurate. THE READERSHIP IS SMALL BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTION IS, DE FACTO, SEVERELY RESTRICTED!! >Three cases in point: > >1) the WD2010 chip group buy I'm organizing. 85% of the responses arrived > from people who ONLY saw it on comp.sys.att > >2) Most (if not all) of Europe is NOT receiving unix-pc.*; my contact in > Brussels writes that his receipt of unix-pc material is ONLY via the > comp.sys.att newsgroup (ref. Jim Sanchez at Sytek). > >3) Clearly 90% of the "Thanks!" email I received for my recent posting of the > new s4diag UNIXPC diagnostics came from people who ONLY could get it from > comp.sys.att. It seems to me that you are arguing my case. > >The volume of postings to BOTH comp.sys.att and the unix-pc.* groups do NOT >warrant further discussion of restriction/polarization/etc; there simply >aren't that many articles. I can store more than an average weeks' worth of >postings to both groups on a single 5-1/4" floppy (400Kbytes). > >I personally prefer that all UNIXPC-related material be only in the unix-pc.* >newsgroups, but the reality of the situation shows that MANY users would >unduly suffer (by being left out) if we followed Greg A. Woods' suggestion. Now wait a minute! This is self-fulling logic. Your inability to exercise this preference rests only on the unwillingness to consider making unix-pc.* a standard distribution. And I entirely support your preference: that was the original point of opening this discussion. >*MY* suggestion is that ALL unix-pc.* material be cross-posted to comp.sys.att >and for people to fix their brain-damaged mail readers. Worst case is for Yes - 'rn' seems to have a problem here. The site name appears in the Xrefs line, but still doesn't mark cross-postings as read. Any gurus out there who can suggest how to address this condition are invited to do so. We hope to get after this problem again in a few days - we have a busted floppy-drive (last repaired just 3 months ago!), so will be off the air to get it fixed. >someone to simply type an "n"; are the lazy readers out there THAT calorie >conscious re: burning 1/2 calorie moving one's index finger? :-) Sheesh, >are people that unable to cope with the vagaries of Usenet? We're NOT talking >about cretin-JJ "Puh-LEEZE HELP ME!" postings; we're talking about postings >and responses from people who have legitimate questions, concerns and answers >about their computing investment. Presumably. But, sheesh, what bearing does this have on the main issue? >Lest we forget: the UNIXPC *IS* an AT&T product. Activity surrounding the AT&T appears to be the primary force dedicated to erasing any remaining evidence of their participation in what has gotta be one of the greatest marketing blunders of the century. >UNIXPC has been growing by leaps and bounds during the past 18 months, far Right - maybe we should make it even more difficult to get! Make 'em learn the secret handshake first, and then require them to post a bond. Set up a committee to see how many we can blackball. Keep it elite. Right on! >more so than with the 6300 family. As an elected officer of the Northern >California AT&T Computer Users' Group, I *SEE* the evidence. When I last heard - long ago - from the local AT&T Users Group here in Portland the decision had been made (jointly with the co-sponsor, AT&T) to drop the 3B1 users from participation, since the 3B1 wasn't a 'real' AT&T product like all the other 3B* stuff. One of the then-elected officers, Pam Myrie, was the one who informed me of this - herself somewhat stunned. The Bay Area is, perhaps, the center of the universe. However, what happens there does not invariably govern elsewhere. Indeed, very *little* of what happens there happens anywhere *else* in the world, based on my few (delightful) visits down there. :-) >The comp.sys.att newsgroup is for the benefit of ALL users/owners/operators >of AT&T equipment, and the evidence I've seen is that over 85% of the UNIXPC >owners/users are unable to receive the unix-pc.* newsgroups. And for those I fail to grasp the logic that says that if only 15% of the people who want to read the group can actually do so, that the obvious remedy is to cross-post everything to another group that everyone *can* read. Aircraft systems and governments rely on 100% redundancy. But newsgroups? If one group captures 100% (best case) of what is carried in the other - why have both? Why does the second group exist apart from the first? That is, AT ALL? Just get rid of the one group and post everything to the other. Or is it intended that the unix-pc.* group(s) are a 'private network' which is mostly available only to people who are willing to jump thru the necessary hoops to finally get a feed? And, dammit, I want to know when I get my Magic Decoder Ring! It should have arrived by now, shouldn't it? Or do I have to call the Hotline? Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (07/11/89)
In article <BOB.89Jul10104424@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bob Sutterfield <bob@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > ...over 85% of the UNIXPC owners/users are unable to receive the > unix-pc.* newsgroups. > >Bushwa! They may be unwilling, but they're certainly not unable. >Anyone who would like a unix-pc feed can have one for the asking. >Drop me a line. I have said this before and I'll say it again, I will give a unix-pc.* feed to anyone that asks. I am even willing to pay for the phone call, provided of course that I don't get requests from every UNIX-PC owner in the US (my telephone budget does have a limit, albeit a very generous one). One of the problems that many UNIX-PC owners have in regards to getting the news is that their pc's are not connected to dedicated phone lines. If your pc is trying to make a data call and your wife (or husband) picks up the phone, she is likely to get upset. It is even worse if someone is on the phone already when the pc tries to make a call. Some of these problems can be alleviated by restricting the calling times for the pc so that it only makes calls in the middle of the night. This does not, however, solve the problem of being able to accept incoming calls. I know that my wife would be upset if the computer started answering the phone, even if it only did it in the middle of the night. "What if my mother has an emergency and needs to get hold of us?" Anyway, if you want a unix-pc.* feed and are either able to accept an incoming call or are willing to call Rhode Island, drop me a line and we'll set something up. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US {rayssd,xanth,lazlo,mirror,att}!galaxia!dave Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {sun,uunet,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb
ccs@lazlo.UUCP (Clifford C. Skolnick) (07/11/89)
In article <704@galaxia.Newport.RI.US> dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) writes: |In article <BOB.89Jul10104424@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bob Sutterfield <bob@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: |>In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: |> ...over 85% of the UNIXPC owners/users are unable to receive the |> unix-pc.* newsgroups. |> |>Bushwa! They may be unwilling, but they're certainly not unable. |>Anyone who would like a unix-pc feed can have one for the asking. |>Drop me a line. | |I have said this before and I'll say it again, I will give a unix-pc.* feed |to anyone that asks. I am even willing to pay for the phone call, provided |of course that I don't get requests from every UNIX-PC owner in the US (my |telephone budget does have a limit, albeit a very generous one). | And I will say once again also :-), I am also willing to feed any system the unix-pc groups. Unfortunately I have no phone budget and you will have to call me in upstate New York. Cliff -- "I'd rather stay here with all the madmen, than perish with the sad man roaming free" -- David Bowie "Life is a test, only a test. If it was real, you would have been given much better instructions." Clifford C. Skolnick / (716)427-8046 / ccs@lazlo.UUCP
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (07/11/89)
In article <688@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: >I want to be clear in my fundamental question about this subject: why are we >setting up an ALTERNATE network? Having a Trailblazer is nice - do you think >*most* sites have that capability? Is that the price that is expected in >order to gain routine access? Does one have to buy a Magic Decoder Ring and >learn the secret handshake, also? This is starting to sound like a Mason's >meeting, not a libertarian forum for sharing of information. First, I guess that a little history is necessary, in order to try to answer your question. Per the list of alternate newsgroup heirarchies from Gene Spafford at Purdue: "Another such hierarchy is the "unix-pc" distribution. This consists of groups devoted to users of the AT&T Unix-PC. These groups were originated as a mailing list started by three owners of AT&T Unix PCs: Gary Smith, David Dalton and Kathy Vincent. As the list expanded, it turned into a newsgroup hierarchy, and more and more sites began to carry the groups; hundreds of sites now carry these groups." Unix-pc.* originated at a time when all groups were net.*, mod.* and fa.*. Back then, it was probably the *only* non-standard heirarchy; the situation with regard to news transmission was also a lot different, with the backbone being composed of sites that were sending news via fairly slow modems. It made a lot of sense to the Unix-PC folks to set up a separate network and newsgroup heirarchy. The result at this point in time is that we have our own little network, and quite frankly a lot of "local" control of the net. We don't have to petition the net.gods for a new group, nor do we have to go through the 2-week+30-day discussion/voting period needed to create a new group in the mainstream Usenet. Like the alt.net, we carry our own weight; sometimes this means that some extra effort may be required to get a feed. Usenet is *not* a free ride. Nor is it a "libertarian forum for sharing of information." It is paid for by the business and government sites that comprise it. If you want a certain net group badly enough, you should be prepared to take the measure necessary to get it. *Anyone* can get UUNET; any net site can get a Trailblazer at a discount if you have a registered domain. >Look. Either you define the validity of moving this group to the main newsfeed >based on: > * NUMBER OF READERS, or...... > * VOLUME OF TRAFFIC Okay, some hard facts: +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month) | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsreaders | | | | | | | | who read this group. V V V V V V V V 112 14000 670 95% 132 243.9 39% 0.03 2.7% comp.sys.att 423 590 29 3% 202 321.0 59% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.general 427 480 24 2% 16 240.7 67% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.sources As a reasonable estimate, unix-pc.* might well go to 18000 (estimated) readers if a straight-line extrapolation makes sense. I'm not at all confident, though, that the "small-town" atmosphere that makes unix-pc work as well as it has would survive the mainstream Usenet. >In other words, the continuance of the status of this group as an off-brand, >tough-to-get service cannot *possibly* be based on similarity of treatment >to other groups that no one even questions should be in the official feed. >So what *is* the basis for this approach? No, the basis is that unix-pc.* has nothing to do with the main Usenet except for the use of the same transport mechanism and overlap between the two networks at many sites. Do you complain if you cannot receive (for example) alt.fusion at your site and say that *all* Usenet sites should carry it? I should hope not; if you do, you're pissing in the wind... :-) Frankly, I would just as soon see unix-pc.* continue in the same vein that it has. It is not a service provided by the Usenet backbone to Unix-PC users; it is a cooperative venture between all of us for the benefit of all of us. Even though I have traded my 3B1 in for a (much) larger system, I continue to carry the newsgroups and provide the redistribution mailing list. It's called the "spirit of Usenet", and it's the reason that people like Rick Adams, Gene Spafford and Mel Pleasant keep on plugging away at providing the services that they provide. It works best when we all do our part. -- Scott Hazen Mueller| scott@zorch.UU.NET (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott 685 Balfour Drive | (408) 298-6213 |Send mail to fusion-request@zorch.UU.NET San Jose, CA 95111 |No dsclmr, my cmptr|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (07/11/89)
In article <BOB.89Jul10104424@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bob Sutterfield <bob@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > ...over 85% of the UNIXPC owners/users are unable to receive the > unix-pc.* newsgroups. > >Bushwa! They may be unwilling, but they're certainly not unable. >Anyone who would like a unix-pc feed can have one for the asking. >Drop me a line. Likewise. 300, 1200, 2400 or TB+, just give me a call. I'm sure the same is true of sites all over the USA at the very least, and likely also anywhere this message will be seen. <Inews fodder>
bob@rush.cts.com (Bob Ames) (07/12/89)
In article <694@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: >>*MY* suggestion is that ALL unix-pc.* material be cross-posted to comp.sys.att >>and for people to fix their brain-damaged mail readers. Worst case is for > >Yes - 'rn' seems to have a problem here. The site name appears in the Xrefs >line, but still doesn't mark cross-postings as read. Any gurus out there who >can suggest how to address this condition are invited to do so. We hope to >get after this problem again in a few days - we have a busted floppy-drive >(last repaired just 3 months ago!), so will be off the air to get it fixed. Why don`t I have a probelm with this? I never read something twice. I will admit that one single article which is cross-posted will show up as something like "1 article in unix-pc.general, 1 article in comp.sys.att" but when I go to read them, I *never* see it twice. Is the current problem just that you`re bothered by being told that you`ve got one more article that you should be? >I fail to grasp the logic that says that if only 15% of the people who want to >read the group can actually do so, that the obvious remedy is to cross-post >everything to another group that everyone *can* read. Aircraft systems and >governments rely on 100% redundancy. But newsgroups? If one group captures >100% (best case) of what is carried in the other - why have both? Why does >the second group exist apart from the first? That is, AT ALL? Just get rid >of the one group and post everything to the other. I don`t know... there could be *some* justification for keeping both. For example, I could read unix-pc.general and even though 100% of this group were cross-posted to comp.sys.att, I would only be reading unix-pc related material. Once the unix-pc.all is done, I then switch to c.s.a. Only after finishing the unix-pc groups must I read c.s.a, which is not guaranteed to contain exclusively unix-pc data. Guess what, this is *exactly* what happens *right now* >[...] And, dammit, I want to know when I get my Magic Decoder Ring! It should >have arrived by now, shouldn't it? Or do I have to call the Hotline? Yea, you have to send in your registration card and AT&T will send you your Personal Calendar program along with your Magic Decoder Ring! |-) Bob Ames The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, NORML "Pot is the world's best source of complete protein, alcohol fuel, and paper, is the best fire de-erosion seed, and is america's largest cash crop." - USDA bob@rush.cts.com or ncr-sd!rush!bob@nosc.mil or rutgers!ucsd!ncr-sd!rush!bob 619-741-UN2X "We each pay a fabulous price for our visions of paradise," Rush
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (07/12/89)
In article <159@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: > >Okay, some hard facts: ... >112 14000 670 95% 132 243.9 39% 0.03 2.7% comp.sys.att >423 590 29 3% 202 321.0 59% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.general >427 480 24 2% 16 240.7 67% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.sources > The readership of the unix-pc.* groups is a lot higher than the arbitron data suggests because there is a bug in every version of arbitron that I have ever seen which causes it to exclude these groups from the data. Somewhere between lines 200 and 225 (your line numbers are most assuredly different than mine), you will find two egrep patterns that look like this: '^[a-z]*\.'. In case you are not familiar with reading egrep patterns, this says: beginning of line followed by any number of alphabetics followed by a period. Now take a look at the name "unix-pc.general" and you will notice that it contains a non-alphabetic before the period! If you receive the unix-pc groups and you submit arbitron data, please change the egrep patterns to be '^[a-z0-9-]*\.' and then re-run the arbitron script to submit new data. Make sure you change BOTH of the egrep patterns because I don't remember which one is used under what circumstances. If everyone on the net does this we should see a huge jump in the readership of the unix-pc groups. By the way, just because you are a small site does not mean that Brian does not want you to submit arbitron data. If only the big sites submit data then the statistics will be incorrectly skewed in the direction of the big sites. The more sites of all sizes that submit arbitron data the more accurate the results will be. I think we should all submit arbitron data so that the unix-pc groups get the recognition they deserve. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US {rayssd,xanth,lazlo,mirror,att}!galaxia!dave Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {sun,uunet,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (07/12/89)
In article <159@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: |[...] |Okay, some hard facts: | | +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. | | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population | | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all | | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) | | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month) | | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage | | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader | | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsreaders | | | | | | | | | who read this group. | V V V V V V V V |112 14000 670 95% 132 243.9 39% 0.03 2.7% comp.sys.att |423 590 29 3% 202 321.0 59% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.general |427 480 24 2% 16 240.7 67% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.sources | |As a reasonable estimate, unix-pc.* might well go to 18000 (estimated) |readers if a straight-line extrapolation makes sense. I'm not at all |confident, though, that the "small-town" atmosphere that makes unix-pc work |as well as it has would survive the mainstream Usenet. One of the reasons that the "unix-pc" numbers are so small is that there is a long-standing bug in "arbitron", the program which gathers and sends out these statistics each month from reporting sites. The bug is that newsgroups with other than "^[a-z]*\." in their names are not selected for the report. Since the string "unix-pc." has '-' in it, it is not selected. The fix is to change to "egrep '^[a-z][-0-9_a-z]*\.' $ACTIVE" in the appropriate places in the "arbitron" script. I've posted this (& some other fixes) to the appropriate newsgroups recently, so there might be some change in the future... -- __ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \cc/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< >_ "A vole in time saves nine" - Ramanujan
vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) (07/13/89)
In article <705@galaxia.Newport.RI.US>, dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) writes: > The readership of the unix-pc.* groups is a lot higher than the arbitron > data suggests because there is a bug in every version of arbitron that > I have ever seen which causes it to exclude these groups from the data. deletion--- > By the way, just because you are a small site does not mean that Brian does > not want you to submit arbitron data. If only the big sites submit data then > the statistics will be incorrectly skewed in the direction of the big sites. > The more sites of all sizes that submit arbitron data the more accurate the > results will be. I think we should all submit arbitron data so that the > unix-pc groups get the recognition they deserve. David: I think that you have hit upon a very important point here. I know that I don't not run 'arbitron'. In fact, I can't find it in my meager archive. Do you think that Brian could repost a fixed version? That way, major sites with 'unix-pc.*' readers would be reporting better data. Meanwhile, maybe you could post a 'Unix-pc' version to ah ah ah 'comp.sys.att'? :-) ( Where else can all of us get it? ) -- Vernon C. Hoxie {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern 3975 W. 29th Ave. voice: 303-477-1780 Denver, Colo., 80212 uucp: 303-455-2670
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/14/89)
In article <159@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >being composed of sites that were sending news via fairly slow modems. It >made a lot of sense to the Unix-PC folks to set up a separate network and >newsgroup heirarchy. No one is questioning whether the decision made sense at that time. It may even make sense now. >The result at this point in time is that we have our own little network, >and quite frankly a lot of "local" control of the net. We don't have to >petition the net.gods for a new group, nor do we have to go through the >2-week+30-day discussion/voting period needed to create a new group in the >mainstream Usenet. Like the alt.net, we carry our own weight; sometimes >this means that some extra effort may be required to get a feed. >Usenet is *not* a free ride. Nor is it a "libertarian forum for sharing of >information." It is paid for by the business and government sites that >comprise it. If you want a certain net group badly enough, you should be >prepared to take the measure necessary to get it. *Anyone* can get UUNET; A libertarian philosophy would, in fact, strongly endorse the notion that those who want a thing to both control and fund it. "Libertarian" is the *opposite* of (not a synonym for) "paid for by someone else as a free ride". "Libertarian government", for example, is an oxymoron. "Free" is a word (along with "victim", and "fair") that libertarians tend to be repelled by. As to my use of the word "libertarian" in this context, I was referring to the absence of control over net traffic by some regulating "authority" which can impose restrictions on the content, frequency, and/or quality of communication - those decisions being made solely by the individuals who choose when and what to communicate and who also support the means of communication. The fact that government sites partake of or convey Usenet no more makes Usenet a government function than would the government's election to use IBM equipment make IBM a government function. Governments can operate in a free market. It is only the opposite proposition that lacks conclusive evidence. >any net site can get a Trailblazer at a discount if you have a registered >domain. You do, then, confirm that in order to receive the unix-pc group(s), the ordinary leaf site should ordinarily be expected (if required by location) to buy a Trailblazer (@ ~$600), and pay long-distance charges for the privilege of access to this group? After having registered as a domain - not exactly the rule on Usenet? You consider this a reasonable price-of-admission. Do I have that right? I assume you would agree that these *are* obstacles that the ordinary leaf site need not typically hurdle in order to receive groups in the ('scuse me) "main feed". That, indeed, the Trailblazer would usually become a necessity *only* because of the need to reduce long-distance charges in order solely to maintain the unix-pc group(s) - since the majority of those sites will likely be able to get local service without long-distance. Sorry, but it seems to me that this is a solution fully worthy of Marie Antoinette. >Okay, some hard facts: > > +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. > | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population > | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all > | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) > | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month) > | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage > | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader > | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsreaders > | | | | | | | | who read this group. > V V V V V V V V >112 14000 670 95% 132 243.9 39% 0.03 2.7% comp.sys.att >423 590 29 3% 202 321.0 59% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.general >427 480 24 2% 16 240.7 67% 0.03 0.1% unix-pc.sources >As a reasonable estimate, unix-pc.* might well go to 18000 (estimated) Making it a larger group than comp.sys.att - especially if the cross-postings were eliminated, which would probably reduce present volume in comp.sys.att by half (or more, if the numbers above were to be accepted as representative, which they may or may not be). >readers if a straight-line extrapolation makes sense. I'm not at all >confident, though, that the "small-town" atmosphere that makes unix-pc work >as well as it has would survive the mainstream Usenet. Ok - here you've got me, and I must earnestly admit that I don't get it. That does *not* mean that I assume you are wrong. I just don't understand how this group would be threatened by gaining wider distribution, and am more than willing to be enlightened (but not fogged). Perhaps this will turn out to be the salient point not taken into account in my assumption that wider distri- bution is a Good Thing for unix-pc users at large. I guess the other question I would have is whether or not there might be ways to preserve this "small-town" atmosphere without (passively) restricting the availability? Is this just not possible? Is there some demonstrated maximum number of people who can enter into a group, after which time it just goes to hell in a basket? Is there some sort of corollary to Parkinson's Law? >>In other words, the continuance of the status of this group as an off-brand, >>tough-to-get service cannot *possibly* be based on similarity of treatment >>to other groups that no one even questions should be in the official feed. >>So what *is* the basis for this approach? > >No, the basis is that unix-pc.* has nothing to do with the main Usenet except I think you neatly managed to avoid the question: you told me what the basis is *not* - I asked what the basis *is*! You could equally have said that the basis of Usenet is that it has nothing to do with General Motors, the ACLU, or the Communist Party of the USA - none of which defines what it *is*. >for the use of the same transport mechanism and overlap between the two >networks at many sites. Do you complain if you cannot receive (for example) If you are defining this as a complaint, then you have missed the point. >alt.fusion at your site and say that *all* Usenet sites should carry it? I >should hope not; if you do, you're pissing in the wind... :-) Pissing *down*wind is, actually, not all that dangerous - as proven personally by me on several occasions :-) *Up*wind, however, is a serious error, I agree. No - I actually am not concerned about my *own* access at all. But I think there are some rather high barriers that exist to access for many others, and I'm not sure what interest is served by maintaining them. I do have some real trouble with responses that amount to: "Because we've always done it that way". >Frankly, I would just as soon see unix-pc.* continue in the same vein that it >has. It is not a service provided by the Usenet backbone to Unix-PC users; >it is a cooperative venture between all of us for the benefit of all of us. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So is the USENET - this is not a difference. And "all of us" in this context seems to imply the present unix-pc membership - no mention is made of the (I would guess) vastly larger number of unix-pc users who are *not* served - and never will be, presumably. >Even though I have traded my 3B1 in for a (much) larger system, I continue >to carry the newsgroups and provide the redistribution mailing list. You have done a Good Thing, sir! Let no person doubt it! :-) >It's called the "spirit of Usenet", and it's the reason that people like >Rick Adams, Gene Spafford and Mel Pleasant keep on plugging away at providing >the services that they provide. It works best when we all do our part. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What, explicitly, does this really mean? I translate it to mean "I'm quite comfortable with things as they are, and really don't want to see a change." That's fine - I'd not try to invalidate your feelings in that regard. But accepting them as a conclusive defense of the status quo is another matter. And, well gee, Scott, I do find it odd that after telling me that the unix-pc group(s) are in no way related to the USENET, that you would fall back on the "spirit of Usenet" as your closing rational for the seperation. It makes nice poetry, but seems to me a logical contradiction. Or, perhaps, the logic is just too subtle for my admittedly coarse reasoning skills. :-) And if this "spirit" actually endorses your every sentiment above expressed, do you get this approval by way of seance, or does it just come to you in the occasional dream? Or do you communicate with it (he? her?) thru your Magic Decoder Ring? (Boy, I just *gotta* remember to call the Hot Line about that!) :-) Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
mike@captain.UUCP (Mike Proicou) (07/15/89)
In article <696@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: >In article <159@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >You do, then, confirm that in order to receive the unix-pc group(s), the >ordinary leaf site should ordinarily be expected (if required by location) >to buy a Trailblazer (@ ~$600), and pay long-distance charges for the privilege >of access to this group? After having registered as a domain - not exactly >the rule on Usenet? You consider this a reasonable price-of-admission. Do I >have that right? Nahh, no Trailblazer required... > >I assume you would agree that these *are* obstacles that the ordinary leaf site >need not typically hurdle in order to receive groups in the ('scuse me) "main >feed". That, indeed, the Trailblazer would usually become a necessity *only* >because of the need to reduce long-distance charges in order solely to --------------------- >maintain the unix-pc group(s) - since the majority of those sites will likely >be able to get local service without long-distance. Sorry, but it seems to me >that this is a solution fully worthy of Marie Antoinette. > I don't know who YOUR phone company is (mine's ATT), but I pay approximately 35 cents per day to pick up a partial feed of unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att via long distance. Of course, I'm only using 2400 baud, and poll Columbus once per night. If this gets too expensive, I think I'll drink one less can of pop at work during the day to support my unix-pc.* habit! I wonder how long it would take for a Telebit to pay for itself????? $600 / .35 = 1714 days to recover the cost of a new modem! I guess I'd have to pick up more groups! Mike PS I really wanted to stay out of this discussion, but ... -- Mike Proicou | The supreme irony of life is mproicou@blackbird.afit.af.mil | that hardly anyone gets out osu-cis!n8emr!captain!mike | of it alive. -- R Heinlein
brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) (07/16/89)
I'm finding this debate increasingly offensive. Bud Hovell is upset that some unix-pc users might have to (gasp!) spend some of their own money, time, and effort to exchange information with other unix-pc users (as if the ability to do so were some kind of right). The answer, says Bud, is to merge unix-pc.all (in some form) into "mainstream Usenet." Well, I am not going to get into a philsophical argument about what Usenet is for and about, and why in my opinion unix-pc.all (in any form) doesn't belong there. Everyone has their own opinion, and few really care to discuss the matter (e.g., me). And such discussions inevitably lead nowhere. As far as I'm concerned, Bud has raised only one point worth considering: the present unix-pc distribution is not getting the kind of circulation it needs. He rightly argues that (in this case) the value of the newsgroups increase in proportion to the size of their audience of unix-pc owners and users. That much is beyond question. Most people also seem to agree that comp.sys.att is not the appropriate venue for unix-pc discussions. The volume of unix-pc discussion demands a distinct group or set of groups. Thus Bud's proposal. I've already said that I think it's the wrong idea. Nevertheless, to Bud I say this: it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Get this discussion out of these newsgroups and start the ball rolling with a newgroup proposal in news.groups. If you don't know how, DO NOT post an article asking how this is done. Rather, do your homework in news.announce.newusers. If the proposal wins, come back and we'll discuss the fate of the unix-pc hierarchy. But now I'll tell you what I think the right solution is, why it's the right solution, and why it's already in place. Obviously, the people who currently do not receive unix-pc.all should make an effort to get it, either by getting a feed (they're certainly available) and running news on their unix-pc's, or by convincing their news administrator to find a feed. However, there are many people for whom neither option exists, practically speaking. They may not have the skill, interest, time, or resources to run news at home, or their only feed options may be too costly, or it may be impossible to affect the newsfeed at their workplace. Those people should not be left out in the cold; those of us in the unix-pc distribution need them as much as they need us. For those folks, the solution is: join the unix-pc mailing list. Scott Mueller maintains a gateway between unix-pc.* and e-mail. Mail sent to gateway get redistributed over unix-pc, and unix-pc articles get sent to you by mail. All you need is a reliable e-mail path to Scott's machine. The mailing list is the solution, and it's already operating. All it could use is a little advertising. Then we can put an end to all this cross-posting. Sure, mailing lists are a bit more difficult to deal with than news groups (although the ARPAnet folks have been using them happily for years). But they do work. And I really do think it arrogant to expect that 10,000+ sites, most with little or no interest in unix-pc's, should spend THEIR money, time, and effort supporting OUR habits. -- Brant Cheikes University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science brant@manta.pha.pa.us, brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu, bpa!manta!brant
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (07/16/89)
In article <490@manta.pha.pa.us> brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) writes: >For those folks, the solution is: join the unix-pc mailing list. >The mailing list is the solution, and it's already operating. All it could >use is a little advertising. With reference to this point, I've been thinking of a monthly posting to comp.sys.att announcing the existence of the list. It should be a short posting, so people can read it, with a fixed Subject: line so other people can put it into their kill files... :-) >I really do think it arrogant to expect that 10,000+ sites, most with little >or no interest in unix-pc's, should spend THEIR money, time, and effort >supporting OUR habits. And before anyone suggests that a mailing list still makes other sites (those on the mail paths) carry our load, let me point out that *mail* traffic through a site is carried without question. A point of curiousity, to those who were not here at the time: The unix-pc mailing list arose out of a previous round of discussion on the topic of merging unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att. At that time, I had proposed gatewaying unix-pc.* traffic into comp.sys.att, but since there was no consensus, I announced that I would start a mailing list and would bring the topic up again at such time as the number of subscribers to the list justified it. It has been a year and a half and there have been at no time more than 35 addresses on the list. Thus, my position that moving the unix-pc.* discussions into the Usenet mainstream is not justified. -- Scott Hazen Mueller| scott@zorch.UU.NET (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott 685 Balfour Drive | (408) 298-6213 |Send mail to fusion-request@zorch.UU.NET San Jose, CA 95111 |No dsclmr, my cmptr|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (07/16/89)
Let me keep this short, I have to repartition my hard drive today... :-( The basis for the type of operation unix-pc.* maintains is that Unix-PC sites and sympathizers maintain the network. We don't request the Usenet backbone to carry it, and don't expect all of the other sites on the mainstream Usenet to forward it. Therefore, while we *all* make feeds freely available, we do not support the position that unix-pc.* should be integrated into the mainstream. If you want unix-pc.*, go and get it from somewhere! *It's* *not* *that* *hard*. If you can't afford UUNET, you can get it from Dave Brierly; if you can't possibly set up another inbound connection, or your site admin won't, you can look for a public-access site and tell them that they'll get your business if and only if they set up a connection. If none of that works, write unix-pc-request@zorch.uu.net, uunet!zorch!unix-pc-request. If you can't or won't do that, I'd consider that adequate proof that you (the hypothetical you, not Bud Hovell or any specific person) don't really want unix-pc.* that badly; you just want to piss (upwind :-) and moan about it. -- Scott Hazen Mueller| scott@zorch.UU.NET (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott 685 Balfour Drive | (408) 298-6213 |Send mail to fusion-request@zorch.UU.NET San Jose, CA 95111 |No dsclmr, my cmptr|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email
kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (07/17/89)
In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >And for those who don't know, there are four: >unix-pc.general, unix-pc.sources, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.bugs. You missed two. From ditka's active file: unix-pc.bugs 00118 00115 y unix-pc.general 03700 03629 y ** unix-pc.misc 00002 00002 y unix-pc.sources 00374 00368 y ** unix-pc.test 00060 00058 y unix-pc.uucp 00140 00139 y Obviously not much traffic in unix-pc.misc; seems more than a bit redundant given unix-pc.general. And to add to the list of available feeds, anybody who wishes to call either of my machines (Chicago and New Mexico) is welcome to a get unix-pc (and most anything else) from me. The New Mexico site, ditka, has a TrailBlazer, while the Chicago site, royko, is limited to 2400 baud but is PC Pursuitable. -- Karl Swartz |UUCP uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!rt1!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |Internet kls@rt1.lanl.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (07/17/89)
In article <694@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: >Set up a committee to see how many we can blackball. Keep it elite. Bud, *many* sites (including both of mine, ditka and royko) offer a feed of the unix-pc groups to anybody who asks. These offers have been expressed many times in this newsgroup and comp.sys.att. That hardly constitutes blackballing anybody or keeping it elite. >Or is it intended that the >unix-pc.* group(s) are a 'private network' which is mostly available only >to people who are willing to jump thru the necessary hoops to finally get a >feed? Do you expect Digital (for example) to carry newsgroups which they care not one whit about across the country for you? Do you expect Tektronix to pull such groups to Portland for you? True, this does happen in many cases, but whining because somebody else won't pick up the tab for you hardly seems just. While there are many sites carrying the unix-pc groups who have little interest in them (one might successfully argue that att is among these sites) it only seems reasonable that the majority of the sites paying to move the group around are UNIX PCs. And again, your talk of how difficult it is to obtain a feed is utter hogwash. Feeds for these groups are easy to find if you just open your eyes. -- Karl Swartz |UUCP uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!rt1!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |Internet kls@rt1.lanl.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) (07/18/89)
In article <170@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: > >And before anyone suggests that a mailing list still makes other sites (those >on the mail paths) carry our load, let me point out that *mail* traffic >through a site is carried without question. Not true, my friend. I, and others I know, run UUCP statistics programs and scripts (such a uucp.stat, traffic, etc.) and watch for abusers. I've identified excessive volume users--1Mb or more per week--and informed them that if they want to move that volume of mail, they should arrange direct links. Many sites agree to unrestricted Email forwarding because it tends to be a reasonable number of low-volume messages; these same sites may not be able to support USENET, either because they've only low-speed modems (<=2400BPS), limited disk space and/or CPU cycles, or limited telephone budgets. People who route high-volume, regular mailing lists through such sites without prior agreement are anti-social in the extreme, and may properly expect objection from the site managers. Dave Ihnat ignatz@homebru.chi.il.us (preferred return address) ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us
nichiren@glyph.UUCP (Andy Heffernan) (07/18/89)
In article <2796@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes: >In article <20239@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>And for those who don't know, there are four: >>unix-pc.general, unix-pc.sources, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.bugs. > >You missed two. From ditka's active file: > > unix-pc.bugs 00118 00115 y > unix-pc.general 03700 03629 y >** unix-pc.misc 00002 00002 y > unix-pc.sources 00374 00368 y >** unix-pc.test 00060 00058 y > unix-pc.uucp 00140 00139 y > >Obviously not much traffic in unix-pc.misc; seems more than a bit >redundant given unix-pc.general. For what its worth, uunet doesn't carry unix-pc.misc: $ grep unix-pc /usr/lib/news/newsgroups unix-pc.bugs Bug reports, fixes & workarounds. unix-pc.general General information and discussion. unix-pc.sources Source code to various programs. unix-pc.test Test group. unix-pc.uucp Configuration and management of uucp on Unix-PCs. I snarfed their newsgroups file about a week and a half ago (and killed the /usr/lib/news/checkgroups script in the process), so it appears to be a reasonably up-to-date list. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Heffernan uunet!glyph!nichiren [1222 - 1282] -------------------------------------------------------------------------
kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (07/18/89)
In article <469@glyph.UUCP> nichiren@glyph.UUCP (Andy Heffernan) writes: >In article <2796@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes: >>Obviously not much traffic in unix-pc.misc; seems more than a bit >>redundant given unix-pc.general. >For what its worth, uunet doesn't carry unix-pc.misc: >$ grep unix-pc /usr/lib/news/newsgroups >unix-pc.bugs Bug reports, fixes & workarounds. >unix-pc.general General information and discussion. >unix-pc.sources Source code to various programs. >unix-pc.test Test group. >unix-pc.uucp Configuration and management of uucp on Unix-PCs. Interesting. My newsgroups file doesn't list unix-pc.misc either, though it's present in /usr/lib/news/active. Perhaps it might be appropriate for somebody to send out a unix-pc checkgroup message to make sure everybody has the right stuff. And, if nobody has any objections, to nuke unix-pc.misc once and for all. Anybody want to do the honors? -- Karl Swartz |UUCP uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!rt1!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |Internet kls@rt1.lanl.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
alexc@whizz.uucp (Alex M. Chan) (07/19/89)
In article <704@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: >In article <490@manta.pha.pa.us> brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) writes: Well, I agree with some of the posting in here, but I think that the groups should be renamed to comp.sys.unic-pc, comp.binaries.unix-pc .... and follow the norm for general. This way most of the backbone sites would have the group(s), this means that if people who is/are interested in getting them could do so. But I got kind of upset when some people say that "if you want this group, you have to call long distance or so inorder to get it. ......" this seems to be against the orginal reason for USENET. This is just my $0.02, if you have any responces ot so, please use E-mail instead and not follow up. Alex M. Chan. | E-Mail : sun!nosun!{qiclab|whizz}!tanya!root /------------\| DISCLAIMER : The above stated is only my personal opinion, | Beam me up Scotty...... | ...in no way it represent my employer or my \------------/ | organization....
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/19/89)
In article <2797@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes: >In article <694@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell) writes: >Bud, *many* sites (including both of mine, ditka and royko) offer a >feed of the unix-pc groups to anybody who asks. These offers have >been expressed many times in this newsgroup and comp.sys.att. That >hardly constitutes blackballing anybody or keeping it elite. Sorry, I blew it - no smiley, again. -------> :-) >>Or is it intended that the >>unix-pc.* group(s) are a 'private network' which is mostly available only >>to people who are willing to jump thru the necessary hoops to finally get a >>feed? > >Do you expect Digital (for example) to carry newsgroups which they >care not one whit about across the country for you? Do you expect >Tektronix to pull such groups to Portland for you? True, this does >happen in many cases, but whining because somebody else won't pick >up the tab for you hardly seems just. This seems to be a common conclusion from my posting(s), in spite of the fact that I believe I made it manifestly clear that we do *not* have the problem of getting a unix-pc.* feed. Other people clearly do. My argument had nothing to do with obtaining a "free ride" - unless you count your USENET feed as "free" also. It isn't. Putting the unix-pc groups on USENET isn't going to make them "free". Do you see the word "free" stated in any of my postings? We have a *very* reliable feed (one step from pacbell via safari - thank you, Dave! :-), and pass unix-pc.* on to a local hub (bucket) which is *very* much larger than we are, and which also gets the unix-pc* feed from ditka. {Sidebar: Some months ago, I directly asked Dave about assisting with long- distance charges for getting unix-pc up from pacbell, and he demurred. If he changes his mind, the offer is still open, as I'm certain he knows.] I do mark safari DEAD to avoid sending mail thru Dave's site, since other paths of transmission are much lower cost, going by TB rather than OBM. If this is a netsin, then please explain to me the logic of using smail routings to keep total path cost to the minimum. Or is this logic *also* to be actively rejected when applied to the unix-pc.net? We cross-feed to bucket primarily to hasten distribution, since we sometimes get unix-pc to bucket faster than bucket gets it from ditka, owing (I assume) to minor differences in propogation. It also means that bucket has redundant backup if one of the two feeding sites goes down for brief periods. It's a small contribution, admittedly, and not remotely on a par with what you and other unix-pc.net.folks support. [If anyone wants to get unix-pc.* directly from us, we'd be glad to oblige. As it is, we cannot offer high-speed transmission without buying a TB and an expansion board to provide more serial ports (we have a terminal). For now, the OBM is it. At night, we also have alot of intensive updates and report- generating going on, which slows things down to a crawl. But, if you're a masochist, we'll be glad to serve you :-).] Which all has nothing to do with the point of the original posting. But may respond to a few of the red herrings. >While there are many sites carrying the unix-pc groups who have >little interest in them (one might successfully argue that att is >among these sites) it only seems reasonable that the majority of >the sites paying to move the group around are UNIX PCs. Substitute 'comp.sys.amiga' for 'unix-pc groups' and 'Amigas' for 'UNIX PCs' and see if this still makes sense to you. Perhaps so. This *does* have to do with the point of the original posting. >And again, your talk of how difficult it is to obtain a feed is >utter hogwash. Feeds for these groups are easy to find if you >just open your eyes. You are probably right. :-) -30- Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (07/19/89)
> And I really do think it arrogant to expect >that 10,000+ sites, most with little or no interest in unix-pc's, should >spend THEIR money, time, and effort supporting OUR habits. A strange concept that I seem to agree with just about everyone. :-) Unfortunately, this statement, while correct and reasonable, can open up a can of worms, since there are already a plethora of groups that are carried by masses of machines (and people) that they have no interest in. rec.backcountry, rec.arts.wobegon, comp.sys.apollo, comp.org.fidonet... ad infinitum. These are all "mainstream" newsgroups that don't cater to a mass appeal. Are these groups useful? Sure. Do they (and the people using them) benefit from mainstream distribution? Sure again. While the readership in those groups may or may not be larger than the unix-pc community, they are a small sample of very specialized groups. comp.sys.att is and is not, at the same time, an appropriate place for unix-pc discussions. The 3b1/7300 is an AT&T product. AT&T does support the machine in a fashion, and does provide peripherals (sorta :-) However, unix-pc.all does not get normal distribution. The unix-pc volume is actually large enough to detriment comp.sys.att and therefore qualifies for it's "own space", which it has, which is not readily available to everyone. Since it already has it's space, there's no real interest in altering, moving or better supporting it. Sortof a Usenet Catch-22. In _most_ cases, a few calls to the right people will solve the problem on the feed angle, but you need to either know the right people, or even know the admin of your machine. It will not be possible in all cases to get that feed, either from unavailable sources, unknown sources, or uncaring or unsympathetic admins, either at your own machine or a machine up the line. Solutions have been proposed, some better than others, and deserve attention. Am I right in assuming that the real options have basically fallen into three options? 1/ Ignore the whole issue (again) 2/ Get "backbone" (mainstream) distribution for unix-pc.all 3/ Create a mainstream group, such as comp.sys.att.unixpc and dump the unix-pc heirarchy -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@cs.umn.edu __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "Scotty! I've gotta have motor functions in three minutes or we're all dead!"
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/19/89)
In article <490@manta.pha.pa.us> brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) writes: >(as if the ability to do so were some kind of right). The answer, says No - it's a privilege. So is driving a car. If one were required to have a chauffer's license with a motorcycle endorsement just to motor the ol' chevvy down to get the groceries at the local store, some might hold that to be an unwarranted restriction of a *privilege*. Add to that the further license endorsement that some would like to see required for people to be able to operate a vehicle on a freeway, and half the motoring public would suffer terminal apoplexy - over the restriction of a *privilege*, not of a *right*. >Bud, is to merge unix-pc.all (in some form) into "mainstream Usenet." <deleted> >As far as I'm concerned, Bud has raised only one point worth >considering: the present unix-pc distribution is not getting the kind >of circulation it needs. He rightly argues that (in this case) the >value of the newsgroups increase in proportion to the size of their >audience of unix-pc owners and users. That much is beyond question. And that is the central issue - where we seem to agree, though many do not. (We may not agree on what is the "optimum" solution, but that's secondary). >Most people also seem to agree that comp.sys.att is not the >appropriate venue for unix-pc discussions. The volume of unix-pc >discussion demands a distinct group or set of groups. Thus Bud's >proposal. I've already said that I think it's the wrong idea. It may well be wrong, depending on the criteria one applies. Since there is no agreement on criteria, agreement on what is "right" is not possible. >Nevertheless, to Bud I say this: it's time to put your money where >your mouth is. Get this discussion out of these newsgroups and start >the ball rolling with a newgroup proposal in news.groups. If you <deleted> Based on what I have *now* seen, this would be pointless, since having wider availability of the group through usenet distribution is clearly not high on the list of most of its existing readership. 'Little disagreement on that point, I'd say, based on the evidence at hand. :-) >But now I'll tell you what I think the right solution is, why it's the >right solution, and why it's already in place. <deleted> >news administrator to find a feed. However, there are many people for >whom neither option exists, practically speaking. They may not have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <deleted> Exactly. And it is the practical effect that counts. >For those folks, the solution is: join the unix-pc mailing list. <deleted> >Scott's machine. The mailing list is the solution, and it's already >operating. All it could use is a little advertising. Then we can put >an end to all this cross-posting. Nothing wrong with that solution, either, as long as the people who do not now enjoy the benefit of these groups have reasonable access by *some* means known to the outer world where they abide. Scott maintains, in a seperate article, that he has had only 35 (was it?) people listed for distribution by email. I suspect we could all agree that this is *not* likely to be a major share of the people who would like to read this group, but who do not receive it. Whether advertising will overcome this barrier, I don't know - but it might, and is certainly worth pursuing. Scott just mentions that he will look into doing a routine posting to the net, and this may well do the trick. If the availability of the group (by whatever reasonable method) is kept *visible to* and gives relatively *easy access for* new participants, then that is the important thing. >Sure, mailing lists are a bit more difficult to deal with than news >groups (although the ARPAnet folks have been using them happily for >years). But they do work. And I really do think it arrogant to expect >that 10,000+ sites, most with little or no interest in unix-pc's, should >spend THEIR money, time, and effort supporting OUR habits. It would be arrogant if I had in any way suggested that every site in the free world (or North America, or the USA, or Portland, OR) should be carrying this group. I did not. I do not. The notion that it should be carried over the net backbone (limited to 'na', perhaps) doesn't imply that at all. As a percentage increase of the daily megadose of net news, it would appear that the output of this group would be lost in the rounding. Just as I suspect a number of *official* groups (might 'rec.music.gdead' be an example?) get no more - and probably far less - active readership than would this group if likewise carried on USENET. Given the other "habits" already being lavishly indulged, I don't see that unix-pc.* is less worthy than, say, 'talk.bizarre' or, perhaps, 'soc.culture.celtic'. (And before any self-righteous knights-errant leap on their trusty chargers to defend a perceived assault on their castles, I am *not* implying that these groups should be dropped!) What's the difference that justifies expecting USENET to routinely carry *these* groups - but *not* unix-pc.*? Much of the "evidence" offered to explain this difference amounted to assigning petty or base - possibly even [God forbid!] *venal* 8-O motives to my raising the issue as I did. Lighten up, guys - all that excess bile can rot your innards :-) :-) Brant's (and some other) reasoned responses have been most refreshing, by comparison. Thanks, Brant (and others), for your patience. I promise to spare the bandwidth of any further discussion on this issue from this quarter. Gotta go now and get my flame-proof suit back into the cleaners again. '-) -30- Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
wilkes@mips.COM (John Wilkes) (07/20/89)
In article <1677@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >basically fallen into three options? > > 1/ Ignore the whole issue (again) > 2/ Get "backbone" (mainstream) distribution for unix-pc.all > 3/ Create a mainstream group, such as comp.sys.att.unixpc > and dump the unix-pc heirarchy > >-- >________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ignoring the issue won't make it go away; the unix-pc is a dead product, but there will continue to be machines in use for at least a couple of years. is a unix-pc feed any harder to get than, say, an alt feed? a gnu feed? don't most backbones carry the alt and gnu groups? in fact, don't most backbones carry unix-pc? or am i spoiled because i work in one of the centers of the universe? ;-) i believe that mr. granvin is correct when he asserts that a feed is simple to obtain if you know who to ask. when i came to mips a couple of years ago, we did not get unix-pc; it took about two weeks, and we picked it up from a site with which we were already exchanging mail. now there's a unix-pc owner in our sysadmin group, so i'm sure our feed is safe. it appears to me that the discussion boils down to this: i have seen no compelling argument for keeping the unix-pc groups somehow separate from the other babel. on the other hand, i have seen a compelling reason to change the way things are now. comp.sys.att is ridiculous. it needs to be subdivided. after all, there's comp.sys.cbm and comp.sys.amiga, but the amiga is a commodore product. there's comp.sys.mac and comp.sys.apple. there's comp.sys.atari.{8bit,st} and i'm sure other examples can be found. i read comp.sys.att, just to catch the unix-pc stuff that didn't make it to unix-pc.whatever. (yes, our rn works properly. no, i hardly ever see duplicate postings, and the ones i do see were actually posted twice by some net.novice.) i'm rather tired of having to wade through all the 3b2 and pc6300 etc. postings. the 3b2 postings have really tapered off, and i suspect it's because we've chased them into their own mailing list. would somebody please go read the directions and issue a formal call for discussion to split comp.sys.att into something sensible like comp.sys.att.3b1 comp.sys.att.3b2 and comp.sys.att.6386 (or whatever.) -- -wilkes wilkes@mips.com -OR- {ames, decwrl, pyramid}!mips!wilkes
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (07/20/89)
Now that my hardware problems *seem* to be over (did I actually say that???), I'll volunteer mccc as a provider of unix-pc.* to anyone with a Trailblazer at 9600 or 19200 bps. -- Pete Holsberg -- Mercer College -- Trenton, NJ 08690 ...!rutgers!njin!princeton!njsmu!mccc!pjh
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (07/21/89)
In article <1677@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
=comp.sys.att is and is not, at the same time, an appropriate place for
=unix-pc discussions. The 3b1/7300 is an AT&T product. AT&T does
=support the machine in a fashion, and does provide peripherals (sorta :-)
??? My latest call to the hot line produced, "Press 2 if you need
support on the 3B line or the 7300." That *sounds* like support. OTOH,
I expect that support and the support for 3B2 <= 400 to disappear pretty
soon, based on the number of 3B2/400s that AT&T is giving away. ;-)
--
Pete Holsberg -- Mercer College -- Trenton, NJ 08690
...!rutgers!njin!princeton!njsmu!mccc!pjhrjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (07/22/89)
>=comp.sys.att is and is not, at the same time, an appropriate place for >=unix-pc discussions. The 3b1/7300 is an AT&T product. AT&T does >=support the machine in a fashion, and does provide peripherals (sorta :-) > >??? My latest call to the hot line produced, "Press 2 if you need >support on the 3B line or the 7300." That *sounds* like support. OTOH, >I expect that support and the support for 3B2 <= 400 to disappear pretty >soon, based on the number of 3B2/400s that AT&T is giving away. ;-) There is a requirement that all discontinued equipment must be supported for a period of five years from the date the product was discontinued. AT&T is obligated to provide that support, unless they go out of business. :-) On the other hand, try to locate a 3b1/7300 product manager within AT&T. S/he does not exist. -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@cs.umn.edu __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "Scotty! I've gotta have motor functions in three minutes or we're all dead!"