From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David Giller) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 00:11:16 GMT
rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo) wrote:
>jaggy@purplet.demon.co.uk (Mike Jagdis) writes:
>>Bollocks to you too :-). Those on the FidoNet end *would* have to wade
>>through every single duplicate. They would also have separate copies in each
>>newsgroup. If they were getting a FidoNet feed they would also be paying to
>>transfer n copies of each message - possibly as slowly as 2400 baud. That's
>>the way FidoNet works and will continue to work despite your (and others')
>>denials.
>
>If that's the way fidonet works, then fidonet is broken and needs to
>be fixed. Certainly, if what you say is true, then I can't comprehend
Ha.... Ha! You've got to be kidding! That's like saying 'Well, since
internet mail can't handle binary data, it's broken... it's just got
to be fixed!'
>how fidonet has dealt with the hundreds of newsgroups which have split
>or been created in the last few years. In any case, assuming for the
>moment that fidonet is irreparably broken and 'will continue to work'
>that way despite all sense to the contrary, and assuming that the number
>of people who use fidonet is significant enough that they should sway
>major usenet policy decisions, and assuming that crossposting is going
>to be rampant in the proposed newsgroups -- which it is not in many
>other split-heirarchy groups like those proposed -- what prevents someone
>smart from fidonet from writing the exceedingly simple front end to
>the fidonet feed that massages the groups appropriately and sends out
>the correct postings? Heck, you could do it in *perl*. You could
>do it in *sh*.
Simple answer. Findonet simply does not echo the vast majority of
what is now somewhere around 1600 usenet newsgroups, judging by one of
my .newsrc files.
>I'm interested in hearing a reasonable reason why comp.os.linux shouldn't
>follow the path of every group that gets this large and chaotic and
>unreadable. Unless it turns out, and I could be wrong on this, that
>Fidonet users make up more than 1% of the total users, I think the
>fidonet argument is a large boondoggle. The "we shouldn't split it,
>because forcing everyone to read all the articles is a boon to
>development because you see things you wouldn't normally see" is another
>boondoggle ("how do I get my trident clocks working" is not opening
>my eyes to variety). I know there are smart people out there that
>oppose this -- why, besides fidonet and variety?
Because the mojority of the world isn't democratic.
There's a significant difference between comp.os.linux and most other
groups which grow to the extent that they need to splinter. That
difference is that readership of comp.os.linux is nearly mandatory for
the use of linux.
>> Usenet is not just a network of Unix machines. Think about it...
>
>Moreover, if usenet appealed to the lowest common denominator, we'd
>be reading news off teletypes at 110 baud. Think about it.
It's pretty easy to forget what a privilege it is to have access to
internet-fed USENET news. The VAST majority of PC users don't have
that kind of access.
This is a vain wish, but maybe if people would stop to think before
posting about
1) whether their message is worth sending to the entire world
2) whether their message is worth taking the time of thousands
of readers around the world
3) whether comp.os.linux is really the proper place to post in
the first place
then this group wouldn't have such a volume problem.
But like I said, it's a vain wish, and for the same reason that
splitting the newsgroup won't even satisfactorily solve the problem
that it was meant to. The reason is that theory has no relation to
reality. If you break this group up into several peices, I guarantee
you that you will see duplicate articles, you will see around 30-50%
of the articles in the wrong newsgroup, and you will spend as much or
more time reading news as you did before.
It's a shame. Maybe it's time for c.o.l to go moderated.
-Dave
-- David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to 1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu