Xref: utzoo news.groups:4871 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:541
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ig!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: What to do about binaries
Message-ID: <6172@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 88 23:05:34 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 54

In article  <8749@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes:
>... Usenet is *not* a bbs,and was never intended to be one...

I've seen that line before, and can't help wondering what prompts it.
Is there a feeling that binaries readers are mostly PC sites that just
use the net to get binaries?  If this is the case, it seems like a
good reason for a site to get rid of binaries, but I doubt that the
binaries readership really looks like that.  I suspect that most
binaries group readers work on a more "normal" site, and use binaries
from the net on their home computers.

>...When all is said and done,the suggestion that a new newsgroup heirarchy
>called "bin" be created to handle binary traffic is probably the best way
>out. This way,sites that want/need these things can get them...

Maybe I'm missing something really fundamental here.  Why can't the
sites that don't want binaries just stop carrying them right now?  Is
there some technical reason?  This seems like the obvious approach,
but if it isn't possible why don't you save us a lot of trouble by
explaining why it isn't.

>... When the "bin" distribution is created,and binaries (of all
>kinds) removed,the amount of traffic (netwide) will probably drop by
>30% (based on my observations at three sites I administrate)...

If that's true, it's another good reason to drop binaries groups at
sites that don't want them.  30% seems pretty high though.  Have these
measurments been done since comp.binaries.ibm.pc became moderated?
And when you make such a decision for your site, you really should
compare the volume to the readership, not use volume as an absolute
measure.

>Surely this is an intelligent thing to do.. The net will still
>carry all the technical discussions that have become important
>to micro users everywhere.

Will it also carry rec.* , soc.* , and talk.* ?  What I don't
understand is the reason for keeping these enterainment groups around
while killing a productive group like binaries.  Not that I have
anything against the entertainment groups, I read a couple of them.
But I get the impression that the hostility towards binaries is
motivated by either (1) an attempt to save other groups at the expense
of binaries, or (2) a personal opinion that binaries are a poor way to
distribute software (I agree), associated with an urge to force ones
own opinions on others (I disagree).

>PS .. personal attacks get you _nowhere_ ..

OK, OK.  I regret the tone of that article.  The keyboard serves as a
de-humanizing influence in communication, and I was thinking of Mr.
Brunow as an irritation rather than as a human being.  I will be more
thoughtful in the future.  I reiterate though, that the article in
question was full of inaccuracies and unsupported generalities.  (For
support of the previous generality, see the my reply and read around
the hostility).