Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Divisions of net.unix* Message-ID: <2157@nsc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Jan-85 14:55:22 EST Article-I.D.: nsc.2157 Posted: Sat Jan 5 14:55:22 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Jan-85 01:18:39 EST References: <2151@nsc.UUCP> <867@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) Distribution: net Organization: The Warlocks Cave Lines: 59 Summary: >So its function would apparrently evolve into 'fa.unix-wizards'. fa.unix-wizards? right. Make it read-only, we don't really need that information at all, why not just stop it completely? Who needs arpanet? Who needs 30-50% of the information in unix-wizards anyway? Fa groups don't work terribly well, Gordon, mainly because it is almost impossible to get information back to it. Look at fa.info-mac and net.micro.mac and the duplication we have there (perhaps we ought to consider moving the fa material into net.micro.mac, but that is beside the point). Moving ARPA unix-wizards to an FA group would be a BIG mistake for both sides-- the ARPA people would lose feedback from Usenet, and the usenet people would have YA group to duplicate postings around. ugh. >I doubt people would stop using net.unix-wizards. People can post to >net.unix-wizards and net.unix.{dev,shell,clib} simulaneously, if they >like. If they aren't going to stop using net.unix-wizards, why should be bother? Your statement basically says 'it isn't broken, but let's fix it anyway'. >Perhaps some software solution could deal with the ARPAnet problem. Software? Oh, PLEASE don't get me going on the reality of making software solutions in an environment where there are sites still running A news (not to mention notes, which I won't mention) and the realities of trying to get the damn stuff written, tested, installed, working, and then used. If we can't do it with what we have, now, in existence, installed, working (kindof) and accepted by the user community, you are SOL (shoot out of luck). Period. Exclamation point. >If there is some what ARPA users could specify for our benefit >which subgroup to post the article to, that would be sufficient. I have a question for you, Gordon. If I asked you to suggest subgroups for your postings, even though you don't see the subgroups, would you really appreciate it? You are asking the ARPA people to change their software and how they deal with it so that it can benefit people on another network completely. The ones that will simply ignore you will bitch mightily about that, and I don't blame them. >Does the ARPAnet produce that much traffic to net.unix-wizards? >Is a software solution not possible? My random survey shows something like 30% of the traffic is ARPA based. It varies, of course-- sometimes I see almost 50% of the traffic from arpa. Of course, those figures aren't significant-- we are always looking for ways to cut net volume.... chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Deadbone erotica is the prickly panic of forgotten milleniums, it is the moldy billion year madness that creeps deep along the spinal behind of my mind.