Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!sl From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Unbiased moderator volunteers Keywords: no,not the source,luke. Message-ID: <1835@van-bc.UUCP> Date: 26 Jun 88 21:27:35 GMT References: <2805@rpp386.UUCP> <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> <8659@netsys.UUCP> <383@teletron.UUCP> Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates, Vancouver, BC. Lines: 62 In article <383@teletron.UUCP> andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes: >In article <8659@netsys.UUCP>, len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >> In article <379@teletron.UUCP> andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes: >> >I'm also in the "binaries must go" camp. I think that *all* sources and >> >binaries newsgroups (including comp.sources.unix) should be replaced by >> >a comp.sources.announce type newsgroup, where announcements of new source >> >releases could be made, including instructions on how to get them from an >> >archive server. (perhaps uunet?) >The reason I included sources with binaries is that a lot of them are machine >specific also. You'll get no argument from me that sources are probably the >most valuable postings in all of USENET, but they're also large. >For example, many Sun specific sources are posted to comp.sources.unix, such >as the monster Postscript interpreter from last year. I'll bet that a good >many sites just let it pass through, as they don't have Suns. With the >addition of 386 machines and other high powered PCs to the net, not every >source posting can be used at every site. >Thus, it seems to make sense to archive them and let individual sites pick >them up if they have use for them. Surely the costs will be cheaper overall >than transmitting them through every site that carries comp.sources.unix. Not only that, but it is paid for *by the people who need them*! >It seems to me that a lot of sites are solving the problem of an increasingly >larger USENET by buying faster modems and installing larger disks. Doesn't >it make more sense to re-organize the software than having to resort to such >brute-force methods? Well there are worse ways. CPU cycles, RAM and hard disk bytes are *far* cheaper today than they where in the past. Are you advocating that we stick with yesterdays technology and dream up neat algorithms to allow us run XWindows (for example) on a Z80. The technology is there, use it. That's not to say that intelligent and creative thinking can't help. When I first brought up news on my Callan a year and a half ago my NewStone rating (average number of articles unbatched per minute) was about 2. And that was with only about a half a dozen sys file entries. I'm now up to about 10, with about two dozen sys file entries. Without any hardware changes. Just better system configuration. It kind of bugs me when people complain too much about the increased volume. I don't think the S/N ratio is too much worse than two years ago when I joined the net. The volume has roughly doubled in that time but the cost of CPU cycles, RAM and disk space has had a roughly corresponding drop. The software is more efficent now - especially if you run C news ( I don't but will convert later this year ). The cost of long distance communications has dropped - both in terms of $/min and increased efficency of using the available bandwidth (ie Trailblazers). Even though the news volume has doubled I suspect that sites who keep fairly current are probably spending very little more and possibly less now than they where two years ago. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532