gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (06/27/88)
In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes:
]
] What do we do about .binaries?
Boy, are you ignorant. Not that ignorance is always something to be
ashamed of, but posting ignorant messages to a network is. My reply
is really to the various people who may have been mislead by your
stupid article, so you don't have to read the rest. You have already
proven to my satisfaction that you don't learn from experience.
] Something that would make a big difference would be to completely
] ban SHAREWARE, as it represents 95% of the traffic in the group
] comp.binaries.ibm.pc.
Or we could ban aritlces by you, since they account for 95% of the
stupidity in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. I'm really curious about your
irrational hatred of binaries. Did you have a bad experience with a
binary as a child? Why don't you just stop reading binary groups?
Then you can pretend they don't exist, and they won't bother you at
all.
] There are several reasons why SHAREWARE
] is not desirable ...
] SHAREWARE is commercial software...
]
Lots of people are happy to see these things on the net. Who do you
think you are to tell us what kind of information we are allowed to
post and recieve?
] SHAREWARE quality is frequently low.
Shareware quality is frequently high also. This can be said about
almost any group of products.
] Following every program
] there are floods of postings regarding bugs, and some of the
] programs have been denounced by the net users for problems.
Following some programs there are floods of such postings. The same
can be said of postings in comp.sources.*
] One distributor of SHAREWARE on the net was contacted about
] problems and he got pretty flame-y, saying "If it trashed your
] file system and ate your favorite program, hey, don't use it".
] Clearly, you get what you pay for.
I suppose you are refering to the flushot problem. Why don't we
eliminate every newsgroup that ever contained a flame? The author of
flushot seems a triffle high-spirited, but he was provoked, and you
are misquoting him.
] Unfortunately, SHAREWARE
] has the effect of crowding higher quality software out of
] the market so that there is no viable alternative to it,
] despite the bugs.
Gee, I would be embarassed to make such a stupid, far-reaching,
undocumented statement. It also presupposes your bogus assumption
that shareware is inherently lower quality than other software.
] There is also a considerable amount of re-posting.
You get the same thing in comp.sources.*.
] SHAREWARE is recursive because it uses SHAREWARE archivers.
The vast majority of binaries for PC's use shareware archivers. Just
goes to show how important shareware is.
] The selection of archivers features an old IBM trick of
] "be nasty to the user", by being incompatible.
Choke! New heights of stupidity! I didn't think think it was
possible. Just what dreamworld do you come from where everything is
compatible with everything else? There are a few naive users out
there complaining about a new archiver that unarchives files in a
certain format, but sometimes produces incompatible archives of its
own. This sort of thing happens so frequently, that I can't believe
anyone with any experience at all would complain about it. It's
called evolution, and usually leads to better products.
] ... And yet the user must have
] several to decode the various forms that SHAREWARE can take.
Wrong. The user only needs pkarc.
] The archives have
] been LZW'd before they are sent and they won't compress
] again for news. This puts a 3:1 size factor on the archived
] SHAREWARE as compared to text.
Huh? This topic has been discussed a lot, and the general concencus
seems to be that arc'ed _may_ under some circumstances cause a very
minor (<5%) increase in the size of news batches. Where in the world
did 3:1 come from? And -- you'd better sit down for this -- this
holds for _any_ archived file, not just that evil shareware.
] SHAREWARE frequently only runs on specific hardware, ie. those
] semi-intelligent terminals that IBM calls the PC.
This is no more common for shareware than for other binaries.
] The actual
] number of people who use any particular package is quite
] small, on the order of a few dozen, at best;...
Neat! Statistics by declaration. If you don't know something, make
up a vague number.
] SHAREWARE has carried the dreaded disk disease, the virus, into
] the world on at least one occasion that is known.
Any binaries or sources can carry viruses. If you don't believe that
a source can carry a virus, maybe I ought to prove it to you...
] There is no
] positive way to protest against such nasties as trojans and
] virii except to ban binary executables.
Or, we could take the totally unexpected tact of letting users make up
their own minds what sort of risks they want to take.
] Hopes that a moderator
] would provide some measure of quality assurance have been dashed,
The moderator was never intended to give quality assurance, he was
supposed to keep non-binaries out of the binaries group.
] and SHAREWARE has been given top priority over the cries of
] net users. This is a deliberate commercial distribution at the
] expense of the net being perpetrated by the moderator.
These poor helpless users must be sending their cries directly to you,
because I haven't seen them. Maybe we ought to investigate the
possiblity that the moderator is being paid off by these fortune 500
shareware companies.
] If we're not going to ban SHAREWARE, I want to know because
] I've got a few meg's of stuff that I'll sell. Up till now I've
] thought it improper, so tell me I'm wrong and here it comes.
We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even
though there are some like you who don't want it to be.
] Or how about the complete Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
] (SAO) star catalog?...
Well, you have to be reasonable, but I guess that's asking too much of
some people.russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) (06/27/88)
In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) had suggested that it might be appropriate to ban shareware postings on usenet. In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) took issue with Mr. Brunow's article and posted a truly cleverless diatribe claiming over and over again that Mr. Brunow was "stupid". Mr. Gudeman adamantly concluded: > We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even > though there are some like you who don't want it to be. Mr. Gudeman is wrong, of course. As most people know, it's not a free net... although it would appear from Gudeman's posting that he doesn't contribute to the high cost of its upkeep. And, while it may be true that Mr. Gudeman is not going to ban shareware (how magnanimous of him), it remains to be seen whether shareware (not to mention ibm.binaries) will continue to be propagated through unix sites if net volume continues to increase. Many of us have held legitimate concerns for quite some time that shareware publishers (I can't say whether Mr. Gudeman is included in their number -- although his vehemence suggests that he may have an ax to grind) are taking advantage of the net to promote their products at the expense of others. In view of the groundswell of opinion aimed at putting the net "on a diet" as Chuq proposed several weeks ago, it might be a good idea for readers of comp.binaries.ibm to give some consideration to Mr. Brunow's suggestion. As it is, Mr. Gudeman's advice to "post away" is ill-advised. Now, Mr. Gudeman, go ahead and tell everybody how stupid I am! If you need inspiration, try looking in the mirror. ;-) -- Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 456-0001 {uunet,killer}!wpg!russ
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (06/27/88)
In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: What do we do about .binaries? >Lots of people are happy to see these things on the net. Who do you >think you are to tell us what kind of information we are allowed to >post and recieve? Lots of people don't pay the bills for the massive amount of traffic that all binaries generate.. >These poor helpless users must be sending their cries directly to you, >because I haven't seen them. Maybe we ought to investigate the >possiblity that the moderator is being paid off by these fortune 500 >shareware companies. These poor helpless users you blithely refer to.. are _backbone_ admins who are getting tired of feeding megs and megs of binaries that only benefit a small percentage of the net.whole .. If I may suggest that you read news.admin once in awhile,you would see the discussion frequently. >We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even >though there are some like you who don't want it to be. Who is "we",might I ask.. It is not a free net.. It is quite expensive for the backbone,and well connected sub-backbone sites. It is expensive for the owner of the site you post from. It may be free for you,since you might not be paying for the equipment,long distance,etc,etc.. (notice I say might,since I don't know you) When all is said and done,the suggestion that a new newsgroup heirarchy called "bin" be created to handle binary traffic is probably the best way out. This way,sites that want/need these things can get them.The sites that have no use for them don't get swamped.Connectivity may get shot to hell,but then again,it is doubtful since there will probably sites that will be glad to provide bin.* feeds .. >Well, you have to be reasonable, but I guess that's asking too much of >some people. That is what the net.whole is asking.. Be reasonable about binaries.. Have some consideration on the budgets of the backbone,so that the people that pay the money will stay on the net.What do you think drove AT&T to do what was done.. Megs and Megs of binaries being sent via uucp mail.. I have one question.. If "binaries" are so important for you, can't you just get them from a local bbs somewhere? With the advent of pc pursuit,surely this is not a problem.. Usenet is *not* a bbs,and was never intended to be one.. I expect some major changes will come about soon,and binaries will soon be a memory. When the "bin" distribution is created,and binaries (of all kinds) removed,the amount of traffic (netwide) will probably drop by 30% (based on my observations at three sites I administrate). Surely this is an intelligent thing to do.. The net will still carry all the technical discussions that have become important to micro users everywhere. Is it possible that you haven't thought of what it takes to distribute this stuff worldwide? When the "bin" heirarchy is created,my site will be glad to feed IBM binaries to other sites.. (I use them too.) PS .. personal attacks get you _nowhere_ .. -- Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!len
hwfe@ur-tut (Harlan Feinstein) (06/27/88)
In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: >] SHAREWARE has carried the dreaded disk disease, the virus, into >] the world on at least one occasion that is known. >Any binaries or sources can carry viruses. If you don't believe that >a source can carry a virus, maybe I ought to prove it to you... >] There is no >] positive way to protest against such nasties as trojans and >] virii except to ban binary executables. >Or, we could take the totally unexpected tact of letting users make up >their own minds what sort of risks they want to take. Chuck, I'll admit that I'm pretty inexperienced in flaming, but here goes: The points in your article <1128@csccat.UUCP> are some of the dumbest I've heard in a long while. I think that the parts I like best, along with David Gudeman's reactions to them, are the pearls of your article. Why don't we ban computers, since viruses run on computers; I mean, after all, viruses can't do anything when the computer is off (or can they?). Why don't you not use your computer? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ People can get viruses. Boycott humans. Harlan Feinstein U U RRRR hwfeccss@uorvm.bitnet Student, University of Rochester U U RRRR hwfe@tut.cc.rochester.edu "We are... U R!" UUUU R R seismo!rochester!ur-tut!hwfe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (06/28/88)
In article <463@wpg.UUCP> russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) writes: >In article <1128@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) had >suggested that it might be appropriate to ban shareware postings >on usenet. > >In article <6010@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David >Gudeman) took issue with Mr. Brunow's article and posted a truly >cleverless diatribe claiming over and over again that Mr. Brunow >was "stupid". > >Mr. Gudeman adamantly concluded: > >> We're not going to ban shareware. Post away, it's a free net, even >> though there are some like you who don't want it to be. > >Mr. Gudeman is wrong, of course. As most people know, it's not a free >net... although it would appear from Gudeman's posting that he doesn't >contribute to the high cost of its upkeep. It was obvious from my wording that I was using "free" in the sense of "unconstrained", not "without cost". I also knew when I wrote it that some people would deliberately misread it. You are right, by the way, I don't pay any of the net costs, except through taxes. If I did, I might not carry binaries or any of the talk groups, and possibly not a lot of the technical groups. If someone wants to cut off binaries because they are costing that person money, I not only wouldn't protest, I wouldn't feel it was any of my business. What _I_ don't like is someone who spends his time trying to talk others into not carrying binaries. It's none of his business. > And, while it may be true >that Mr. Gudeman is not going to ban shareware (how magnanimous of him), >it remains to be seen whether shareware (not to mention ibm.binaries) >will continue to be propagated through unix sites if net volume continues >to increase. I suspect they will drop a lot of other things first. >Many of us have held legitimate concerns for quite some time that >shareware publishers (I can't say whether Mr. Gudeman is included in >their number -- although his vehemence suggests that he may have an ax >to grind) are taking advantage of the net to promote their products >at the expense of others. I'm not a shareware publisher. I _have_ written and distributed some public domain sources. I don't actually like the shareware idea much, but I like freedom. And I don't like busybodies trying to restrict my freedom. _That_ is the axe I have to grind. And shareware publishers are not using the net just to promote their products, but to distribute them. A lot of us are glad to see them. PICNIX has made MSDOS usable for me. >... Now, Mr. Gudeman, go ahead and tell everybody how stupid I am! >If you need inspiration, try looking in the mirror. ;-) Sheesh. Talk about cleverless. I actually, I've been told I look quite intelligent (high forehead, beard, glasses :-). Anyway, I don't call people stupid until they prove it to my satisfaction. If you read the article by Brunnow and know anything about shareware and binaries, you will have to agree that his article was at least not very well thought out. Rereading my response to Brunow in the cooler light of morning, I'll admit it was a little harsh. But when the same person keeps publishing the same misinformation, I get a little irritated. I also would like to know why the guy hates binaries so much. If they are costing Chuck Brunow money why doesn't he just stop carrying binaries and shutup?
carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) (06/29/88)
In article <6018@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: [a fairly calm and clearly-reasoned response to a flame by a binary-hater, then:] > But when the same person keeps >publishing the same misinformation, I get a little irritated. I also >would like to know why the guy hates binaries so much. If they are >costing Chuck Brunow money why doesn't he just stop carrying binaries >and shutup? Amen. Mr. Brunow's ravings against binaries and shareware haven't taken up as much bandwidth as binaries themselves have (although with the dribble lately in c.b.i.p, it's getting close), but he's surely more irritating. Reminds me of political theory as a whole. Mr. Brunow represents the side that wants (net)society to enforce some rules on everybody "for their own good and for the good of society", while Mr. Gudeman (and myself, and many others) would rather let (net)society "vote with their feet". If you don't want binaries - DON'T GET BINARIES and DON'T FEED BINARIES DOWNSTREAM. I'm confident that there will be enough sites still carrying binaries that everyone who wants them can still get them. This newsgroup does not need endless political diatribes against them. The business about a separate hierarchy for binaries (while not objectionable to me) is a red herring. A news administrator can cut off any specific newsgroup not desired. It might take five minutes to run 'sed' on the active file to find out which groups have "binar" in the name and intelligently edit that information. I was willing to ignore the first couple tirades against net.binaries, but Mr. Brunow is SOOO persistent... -- Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"I met a girl who sang the blues | and asked her for some happy news UUCP: carlp@iscuvc.ISCS.COM | but she just smiled and turned away" ...uunet!iscuvc!carlp | - Don MacLean
loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (06/29/88)
In article <3355@bsu-cs.UUCP> pervect@bsu-cs.UUCP (Barrett Kreiner) writes: > >Please, no direct Mail replies, because: >1) the net SHOULD hear what you have to say to me, and >2) I can't take large amounts of mail :-). Barrett, I like it. I don't agree, but it makes sense. Chuck -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
markh@cvedc.UUCP (06/30/88)
Well, here comes my $.03 worth ... In article <3355@bsu-cs.UUCP>, pervect@bsu-cs.UUCP (Barrett Kreiner) writes: > (ok ladles and gentlmints, arm flamethrowers at leisure) > Compiling one and two, I say that doing away with binaries is wrong. > Splitting the binaries into their own group would be ok.. a bit of a bother, > but ok. Going to source only would be the worst thing the system could do. > (personal opinion.. ok?) I agree with you totally in this respect. For some machines, it is much easier to grab a binary than to try and find the compiler that the other guy used (which 9 times out of 10, I don't have anyway) or try to port to the one that I have readily available. Granted, you have to be aware of the posibility of a virus, but that is why I unpack them on my machine. It's non-critical anyway. > > For some ammunition for this note, I browsed comp.sources.games for > a size comparison.. Wanna to know what I found? (No. but you're gonna get > it anyway.) > > For those of you who have access to a grand and glorious SUN station, > you too can play Mahjongg, if you collect all 38 parts.. > I pulled what was available out.. the total size (up to pt. 31) is 1594k. Having written that beast, I feel I should at least defend it (some). I don't know why, it has given me more grief that benefit ;-). In an attempt to save net load, I originally sent out the "better" portion (icons) of it out as a compiled .o file. By the time I had targeted all three major platforms I would have had 8 shar files with ~ 1Mb of data. Not bad given the multiple platform problem. But the minute that I posted a .o file (nearest thing to a binary with out actually sending one) people started screaming virus! (If you aren't hiding something in there then why not send source ;-) So, after discussing it with the moderator, we decided to send out the source for the icons. So don't blame me, I did my best to keep it down. Will of the people and all that rot! (back to the discussion at hand) This is the situation you run into where you have a "standard" compiler set. People would rather see source than binaries. They (usually) have to much to lose from an attack of "virus" because they are generally serving more than one person. On platforms where the compiler set(s) range so widely, it becomes much easier to post/use a binary than to try and match the environment it was created in. (Sounds of asbestos suit being donned) I found that in general, programming practices on the smaller platforms tend to be much sloppier than that found on say a Sun or Vax, making it difficult most times to recreate the environment to compile in. > > I'm sorry, but THE largest thing in OUR archives is the kermit source files > which had an estimated transmission size of ~700k. Even jumbo-da-elephant > PICNIX had an E.T.S. of ~560k. !And! there are a whole lot more PC's running > in the world today than SUN's. > > All I'm saying is that the gripers should be looking in ALL places for > waste, not just (apparently) trying to single out comp.binaries. > Here! Here! (with the above taken into account) > Please, no direct Mail replies, because: > 1) the net SHOULD hear what you have to say to me, and > > P.S. Mr. Rose, I feel that your (apparent) re-route of followups to > /dev/null was a low blow... plus the fact it didn't work :-P Ditto! =========================================================================== Mark Holm ..tektronix!ogcvax!cvedc!exc!markh Exceptions ..sun!cvbnet!cvedc!exc!markh 126 NE Grant Phone (503)648-8307 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Messages only until after 6:00 PM
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (07/01/88)
In article <1671@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: > I was willing to ignore the first couple tirades against net.binaries, but > Mr. Brunow is SOOO persistent... > -- > Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"I met a girl who sang the blues and should chuck ever get tired of preaching the faith, you'll have me to deal with. i think chuck is more liberal than i am. last time i checked he only wanted to scrap shareware. i'd rather see them all go. - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :SMAILERS "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
jgray@toad.pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Jerry Late Nite Gray) (07/02/88)
In article <3355@bsu-cs.UUCP>, pervect@bsu-cs.UUCP (Barrett Kreiner) writes: > > All I do is watch these groups (and comp.sys.ibm.pc) and collect the > binaries. But I want to put my $.02 worth in. Binaries are MINOR net hogs. > I don't argue this. I personally get upset when things like PICNIX (and > update) get dumped on the system often. It makes more work for me, and the > last version came across our site with a corruption. > > BUT before you go condemning binaries as a group, look at a couple of facts. > ... Many words on waste elsewhere deleted > > All I'm saying is that the gripers should be looking in ALL places for > waste, not just (apparently) trying to single out comp.binaries. I'd like to give this man a pat on the back. Seems to me that far too many people are tend to loose their perspective on things like this. Though I aggree with some points made against shareware I don't aggree with slamming the binaries groups because of net bandwidth. I took a snapshot of the stuff on our system news directories which I will include for the sake of those who have spouted an opinion without bothering to look at thier own net traffic. I will qualify this stuff with the general question of whether or not other people on the net see similar levels of traffic. By the way, I understand that articles under the "comp" topics have a longer lifetime on our system than the other newsgroups. This info was generated with the "du" command and many of the really tiny non-"comp" group stuff was deleted. Kbytes Kbytes 2050 soc 278 comp/binaries/ibm 1280 sci 44 comp/binaries/apple2 1750 talk 2517 comp/binaries 1365 misc 454 comp/protocols 98 comp/misc 6 comp/compilers 586 comp/sys/ibm 93 comp/risks 10 comp/sys/nsc 3 comp/newprod 200 comp/sys/atari 9 comp/doc 52 comp/sys/hp 10 comp/society 232 comp/sys/apple 21 comp/fonts 714 comp/sys/amiga 104 comp/software-eng 802 comp/sys/mac 1 comp/theory 230 comp/sys/att 1 comp/ivideodisc 3 comp/sys/ti 71 comp/parallel 19 comp/sys/misc 20 comp/simulation 24 comp/sys/cbm 14982 comp 14 comp/sys/m6809 34 rec/misc 13 comp/sys/tandy 411 rec/autos 11 comp/sys/m68k 971 rec/music 11 comp/sys/intel 2106 rec/arts 66 comp/sys/dec 752 rec/games 1 comp/sys/masscomp 205 rec/audio 1 comp/sys/sequent 313 rec/ham-radio 1 comp/sys/workstations 511 rec/humor 27 comp/sys/apollo 47 rec/photo 70 comp/sys/sun 15 rec/puzzles 5 comp/sys/pyramid 642 rec/sport 2 comp/sys/ridge 105 rec/video 1 comp/sys/celerity 102 rec/motorcycles 17 comp/sys/transputer 204 rec/food 40 comp/sys/zenith 15 rec/nude 3 comp/sys/xerox 406 rec/aviation 14 comp/sys/proteon 112 rec/bicycles 3 comp/sys/encore 183 rec/travel 16 comp/sys/sgi 2 rec/skydiving 1 comp/sys/tahoe 63 rec/pets 3180 comp/sys 19 rec/woodworking 1360 comp/unix 12 rec/birds 444 comp/ai 22 rec/boats 11 comp/cog-eng 31 rec/gardens 237 comp/text 19 rec/scuba 261 comp/arch 17 rec/railroad 709 comp/lang 1 rec/mag 209 comp/graphics 67 rec/guns 45 comp/os/cpm 6 rec/equestrian 451 comp/os/minix 43 rec/models 837 comp/os/vms 31 rec/folk-dancing 1363 comp/os 7464 rec 746 comp/mail 1410 news 1921 comp/sources 34199 . 227 comp/emacs 48 comp/databases 31 comp/bugs 211 comp/dcom 40 comp/org 56 comp/periphs 73 comp/std 2 comp/lsi 14 comp/edu 423 comp/windows 723 comp/binaries/atari/st 723 comp/binaries/atari 822 comp/binaries/amiga 650 comp/binaries/mac 132 comp/binaries/ibm/pc/d 278 comp/binaries/ibm/pc A few things worth noting. All of the binaries make up about 7.4% of the total with only about 10% of that (0.7% of the total) for the IBM-PC. Note that the dreaded MacIntosh binaries are twice the size of the PC and the Amiga is even larger still (strange considering the size of the relative computer populations). Everything NOT under "news/comp/*" ammounts to about 56% of all network traffic. I propose that if we wan't to eliminate all of the useless (i.e. not contributing to advancement of school or work) traffic, we get rid of all of the non-computer related newsgroups. I submit for your approval that to rant an rave about net bandwidth wasted on potentially usefull binaries while saying nothing about postings on jokes, politics and religion indicates a rather preverse set of priorities. Flame me...... I don't care. I will just chuckle over the thought of someone wasting yet more bandwidth to refute this. I've a notion that the truely intelligent will remain silent anyway. --------------- Jerrold L. Gray UUCP:{ihnp4|caip|tektronix|ucbvax}!uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!jgray USNAIL: 10525 Willows Road N.E. /C-46 Redmond, Wa. 98052 (206) 881 - 6444 x470 Telex: 15-2167
diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) (07/07/88)
> that (0.7% of the total) for the IBM-PC. Note that the dreaded MacIntosh > binaries are twice the size of the PC and the Amiga is even larger still > (strange considering the size of the relative computer populations). > > Everything NOT under "news/comp/*" ammounts to about 56% of all network > traffic. > > I propose that if we wan't to eliminate all of the useless (i.e. not > contributing to advancement of school or work) traffic, we get rid of > all of the non-computer related newsgroups. I submit for your approval that > to rant an rave about net bandwidth wasted on potentially usefull binaries > while saying nothing about postings on jokes, politics and religion indicates > a rather preverse set of priorities. > > Flame me...... I don't care. I will just chuckle over the thought of someone > wasting yet more bandwidth to refute this. I've a notion that the truely > intelligent will remain silent anyway. > I agree 100% with the above!!!! It is ridiculous that everyone is complaining so much about this. We could start saving alot of space by not arguing over this. Let's just leave things the way the are. If a site doesn't want binaries then don't get it!!! You do not have to get everything!! I hope that all of this stupid arguing ends soon. I am tired of wading through so many articles to get to the ones I want to read. Didn't we just do this not too long ago with binaries?? What will be next?? Jeff Blanchet SDRC Cincinnati Ohio UUCP: uunet!sdrc!diblanch
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (07/09/88)
In article <317@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >It is ridiculous that everyone is complaining so much about this. >We could start saving alot of space by not arguing over this. >Let's just leave things the way the are. >If a site doesn't want binaries then don't get it!!! >You do not have to get everything!! however, many sites are committed to taking 100 percent of comp. they are called `backbone sites'. and had you followed the discussion when this first started over in news.groups, you'd know that some of those sites don't much care for binaries. also, by usenet conventions, other sites are required to carry all of the main groups. these are called `sites which connect to backbone sites'. leaf nodes can get away with not carrying everything, and indeed, most leafs seem to be pretty picky. i mean, why carry something just to fill up disk space? the heart of the question is, should the non-leaf sites carry binaries just so the leafs can use them? - john. -- John "Evil USENET User" F. Haugh II HECI Exploration Co, Inc., Dallas UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.UUCP :DOMAIN **** Trivia question of the day: VYARZERZIMANIMORORSEZASSEZANSERAREORSES? **** "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (07/09/88)
In article <8749@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >... Usenet is *not* a bbs,and was never intended to be one... I've seen that line before, and can't help wondering what prompts it. Is there a feeling that binaries readers are mostly PC sites that just use the net to get binaries? If this is the case, it seems like a good reason for a site to get rid of binaries, but I doubt that the binaries readership really looks like that. I suspect that most binaries group readers work on a more "normal" site, and use binaries from the net on their home computers. >...When all is said and done,the suggestion that a new newsgroup heirarchy >called "bin" be created to handle binary traffic is probably the best way >out. This way,sites that want/need these things can get them... Maybe I'm missing something really fundamental here. Why can't the sites that don't want binaries just stop carrying them right now? Is there some technical reason? This seems like the obvious approach, but if it isn't possible why don't you save us a lot of trouble by explaining why it isn't. >... When the "bin" distribution is created,and binaries (of all >kinds) removed,the amount of traffic (netwide) will probably drop by >30% (based on my observations at three sites I administrate)... If that's true, it's another good reason to drop binaries groups at sites that don't want them. 30% seems pretty high though. Have these measurments been done since comp.binaries.ibm.pc became moderated? And when you make such a decision for your site, you really should compare the volume to the readership, not use volume as an absolute measure. >Surely this is an intelligent thing to do.. The net will still >carry all the technical discussions that have become important >to micro users everywhere. Will it also carry rec.* , soc.* , and talk.* ? What I don't understand is the reason for keeping these enterainment groups around while killing a productive group like binaries. Not that I have anything against the entertainment groups, I read a couple of them. But I get the impression that the hostility towards binaries is motivated by either (1) an attempt to save other groups at the expense of binaries, or (2) a personal opinion that binaries are a poor way to distribute software (I agree), associated with an urge to force ones own opinions on others (I disagree). >PS .. personal attacks get you _nowhere_ .. OK, OK. I regret the tone of that article. The keyboard serves as a de-humanizing influence in communication, and I was thinking of Mr. Brunow as an irritation rather than as a human being. I will be more thoughtful in the future. I reiterate though, that the article in question was full of inaccuracies and unsupported generalities. (For support of the previous generality, see the my reply and read around the hostility).
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (07/10/88)
In article <243@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) writes: >just to fill up disk space? the heart of the question is, should >the non-leaf sites carry binaries just so the leafs can use them? Should the non-leaf sites carry discussion groups just so the leaves can use them? Should they carry sources just so...? Should they carry news feeds just so...? Most of the groups serve some special interest group; very few are read by all subscribers. One of the newsgroups (net.config? or something) just posted Brian Reid's monthly survey of net usage. The pc binaries group was way up there in readership, it was up there in volume but there were lots more voluminous groups, and its "cost-per-user-per-megabyte" rating was lower than a lot of other groups too. Fascinating reading for people who get all concerned about the cost-effectiveness of the various groups. (Comp.eniac.tcp-ip was a big loser last month.) > John "Evil USENET User" F. Haugh II HECI Exploration Co, Inc., Dallas You mean there's a Good USENET available?!?!? -- bob,mon (bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) "In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."
dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (07/10/88)
In article <1215@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: > I don't agree, but it makes sense. ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ Atta boy, Chuck, you tell'em! -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481 Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6 USPS: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (07/13/88)
In article <1444@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: > Thank you, David, I'll accept that explanation and, in the > same spirit, make the following small announcement: > > The discussions have convinced me that .binaries have earned > their place on the net... (Boy, this ruined my whole morning. My concience was going to let me get by with only an "explanation", and not the public apology that was really required, until Mr. Brunow went and got noble. Nuts.) Mr. Brunow, I apologize for the uncalled-for insults I posted. David Gudeman (That hurt just as much as I thought it would, but I had it comming.) gudeman@arizona.edu {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!gudeman
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (07/18/88)
David Gudeman (gudeman@arizona.edu) writes: > Maybe I'm missing something really fundamental here. Why can't the > sites that don't want binaries just stop carrying them right now? Is > there some technical reason? I would very much like to stop carrying binaries on mcdchg, even though I find the IBM PC binaries useful on occasion and my boss finds the Mac binaries useful on occasion. There is no technical reason why I can't stop carrying them right now. The thing that is stopping me is a continuing feeling of obligation to carry the comp hierarchy (and the other groups, less talk and some alt groups) to make them available to the sites I feed. I feel this obligation even though no such obligation actually exists. Some day, news volume will be so high that tough choices will have to be made. Already, my disk space and modem time is tight. Moving the binaries to a new hierarchy for which I would not *feel* responsible would help me out a great deal. Don't taunt the administrators of machines that feed multiple megabytes of traffic through their systems every day with things like, "Why can't the sites ... just stop carrying them". If I finally do start cutting off newsgroups in comp, rec, soc, misc, etc., you might be surprised at just how little continues to go through here. I've talked before about BBSs and Compuserve. I've talked about how cheap modems really are these days. I've talked about user groups. The binaries don't even have to travel as news. Alternatives are viable and exist. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)