Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!killer!pollux!dalsqnt!rpp386!pigs!haugj From: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: What to do about binaries Keywords: binaries binaries binaries Message-ID: <243@pigs.UUCP> Date: 8 Jul 88 18:44:38 GMT References: <6010@megaron.arizona.edu> <8749@netsys.UUCP> <3355@bsu-cs.UUCP> <923@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> <317@sdrc.UUCP> Reply-To: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) Organization: Big "D" Oil and Gas Lines: 26 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