From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) Subject: Re: comp.os.linux.binaries Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 14:27:00 GMT
<< Note follow-up redirected to news.groups >>
vince@victrola.sea.wa.us (Vince Skahan) writes:
>michaelw@desaster.hanse.de (Michael Will) writes:
>>What about comp.os.linux.binaries for those of us who are so lucky to have a
>>highspeedmodem and would not mind the traffic there?
>I think it's an incredibly dumb and wasteful idea, IMHO. I think the 15,000
>or so USENET sites that are registered in the maps (many paying phone bills)
>and the who-knows-how-many Internet sites who need cpu cycles and disk space
>to handle the volume would think it's wasteful too.
Not that I care on way or another about a binaries group, as I
think a source group with mainly patches would be more usefull, but why
do people seem to have the attitute that a group like this would be any
more wasteful and unpopular that the ms-dos binaries group, the windows
binaries group, the amiga binaries group, the mac binaries group, etc,
etc.
It's not exactly a new idea. The whole reason it's in the
comp.binaries or comp.sources hierarchies is so sites can decide if they
want the volume, and Brian Reid's distreibution figures do not bear out
the claim that binaries groups are as unpopular as is suggested.
-- John Henders GO/MU/E d* -p+ c+++ l++ t- m* s/++ g+ w+++ -x+