len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (06/30/88)
Killer has agreed to distribute the bin groups.. Who else is next? -- Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or len@netsys
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (07/01/88)
What's the point of this bin.net? Being of a suspicious nature, I have this nagging suspicion that the intent is to give binaries an alternate group, so the anti-binaries types can say "Well, gee, since binaries have their own net, we shouldn't carry them here."
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (07/01/88)
In article <6062@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
What's the point of this bin.net? Being of a suspicious nature, I
have this nagging suspicion that the intent is to give binaries an
alternate group, so the anti-binaries types can say "Well, gee, since
binaries have their own net, we shouldn't carry them here."
I can understand the concern,but "what if" one bright summer day,
something happened to comp.binaries.ibm.pc .. I guess some people
would rather wait until that day before organizing something.. It
is no big deal, only binaries , right?
Meanwhile,it is a sincere effort. If there are any large machines
that have need of these binaries, contact us now.
If there are no sites willing to act as "backbones" then I suppose
the whole idea is doomed,eh? Which means that no one who counts
really wants to pay for them..
killer and netsys and who else.
Len
--
Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677
len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or len@netsyshaugj@pigs.UUCP (07/01/88)
In article <8819@netsys.UUCP>, len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: > Killer has agreed to distribute the bin groups.. > Who else is next? > -- > Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 > len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or len@netsys I wasn't aware the decision had been made to create a new heirarchy. I'm all for it. I will probably plan on carrying the groups, once binaries are removed from comp.all. Then again, maybe I'll just bask in the empty disk-ness for a while ;-) - 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
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (07/02/88)
In article <230@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) writes: >In article <6062@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >>What's the point of this bin.net? Being of a suspicious nature, I >>have this nagging suspicion that the intent is to give binaries an >>alternate group, so the anti-binaries types can say "Well, gee, since >>binaries have their own net, we shouldn't carry them here." I should have explained better. It seemed to me that the person who was starting this bin.net had earlier supported removing binaries from the network. I wasn't sure about this, so I posted what I thought was a mild inquiry. I honestly don't see any need for net.binaries, though I'm really not concerned one way or the other. I was curious. >yes, mr. gudeman, you guessed correctly. sometime after i finish >this article i am going to go into news.groups and request an rmgroup >(or, rather, request a `vote') to dispose of this little newsgroup of >yours. Hmm. Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell, given all the unwaranted hostility that the binaries groups seem to generate. Also, calling the group mine is a little silly, since I have never posted anything to it. It amuses me that I seem to have become the Great Defender of binaries groups, since I only read one, and wouldn't even be too put out if that one disapeared. My infamous defense of binaries was not prompted by fear that binaries would disapear, but by (1) the misinformation in the article I responded to, and (2) the insufferable arrogance of someone trying to tell the rest of us what is worth posting. >but you are more than free to take a bin.net feed from anyone who >can afford the expense of carrying one themselves. of course, the >net won't be `free' anymore. what a shame. Yes, that would be a shame. Next we should rm social groups, because they don't add anything productive, then we should rm sources.games for the same reason. Then we should make a careful analysis of the remaining groups, and those that don't carry at least 50% original research should be rm'ed. It leaves a pretty bleak network, but very low-cost. If the backbone sites stop carrying binaries, I would be mildly disapointed, but would still be grateful for those groups they continue to carry. I've noticed a lot of people flaming the backbone for various slights, and always thought they were ingrates. It's like someone gave you a gift, and you gripe that it's not the more expensive one you were expecting. What bothers me is when some uninvolved authoritarian tries to tell the gift-giver what is an "appropriate" gift.
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (07/03/88)
In article <8819@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >Killer has agreed to distribute the bin groups.. >Who else is next? We'll be more than happy to redistribute 'em, but cannot afford to call across the country to pick it up. In other words, if they can arrive here without our polling killer or you, we'll handle redistributing them in Chicago. -- Karl Denninger (ddsw1!karl) Data: (312) 566-8912, Voice: (312) 566-8910 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (07/03/88)
I cannot see any reason for creating the proposed bin.net. If anything, it
will start separating Usenet into chunks, creating confusion rather than
lower phone bills. Besides, check out the latest Arbitron reports.
copm.binaries groups account for a small percentage of net traffic now,
unlike previous months. The moderation of comp.binaries.ibm.pc has helped
considerably, as it no longer appears at the top of the lists (which had put
it at the top of several people's hit lists as well). The moderation is
going very well, keeping the traffic low.
If you're still going to argue about the traffic, apply your arguments to
ALL groups, not just the binaries groups, or any group you don't like. After
the 38 part posting of mahjongg in comp.sources.games, which was useful only
for Suns, I don't see anybody arguing for a sources.net...
============================================================================
Brian O'Neill, MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator
ArpaNet: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu
UUCP : {(backbones),harvard,mit-eddie,et. al.}!ulowell!hawk!boneilllen@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (07/03/88)
The intent has been wildly mis-interepreted. I happen to like IBM binaries.I saw the possible need for an alternative network,and saw also the _good_ thing that it would do for the net as a whole. The net isn't a bbs folks. Sooo.. screw it. -- Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or len@netsys
simcha@humming.UUCP (Simcha Lerner) (07/06/88)
Regarding creating a new bin distribution: In article <11440@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > > I hate to see the net fragmented so... I guess that's one way of >killing it >-- > bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) > {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen I agree! If the backbone sites don't want to carry binaries, they ALREADY have the ability to kill them off individually. Let's not start up a whole bunch of little subnets - either a news group is acceptable to those who pay the bills (and acceptability criteria may include both content and volume restrictions) or it isn't. If the backbone sites serve notice that binaries are to be shut down, then (and only then) would it make sense to look into forming an alternate net. And if we do get shut down, let's hook in under the alts distribution, and NOT start YAASD (yet another alts distribution system)! Simcha Lerner ...(harvard | talcott)!humming!simcha as always, my opinions are my own...(does my boss really check to see if I post a disclaimer?)
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (07/08/88)
It's not necessary to create a new high-level network to support binaries! If you don't want them, just have your newsfeeds put !comp.binaries.all in their sys files for you, and you won't be bothered. Or put it in your outgoing newsfeeds and you at least won't pay for distributing it outgoing. What's the advantage of this approach? - creating a new high-level takes a long time to get good propagation. - most sites already carry comp.binaries, and many people use them. - only the people who don't want them have to do anything, and many already have. - the net is fragmented enough - let's not increase it. -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs