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.