🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4343@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>In article <3912@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
><In article <4325@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
><>In article <1992Oct21.213414.13440@kosman.uucp> kevin@kosman.uucp (Kevin O'Gorman) writes:
><><I have taken the venerable USA map source and mangled it a bit. I think
><><the results are cleaner. There's also a perl utiltiy to make it easier
><><if you want to do some mangling of your own.  Look in alt.sources.

><>Another supposid great idea.  Post in alt.sources, making it NOT available
><>to the general public.

><>I don't like the alt groups.  They aren't available to everyone.  Posting
><>in said groups means that it will be missed by lots of people.

><Alt groups are available to everyone just like everything else.  If you're
><not getting them, take it up with your SA, your feed, or obtain another
><feed.  'Tis easy.

>'Fraid that it isn't as easy as Chris implies.  In the Madison, WI, area,
>the alt groups aren't readily available from the UW, which is the main source
>of news for this area of the woods.  Can't get another feed locally, as they
>are the only game in town.

It's trivial.  More detail at the end.

>BTW; I am, I have and I can't.

You know Michael, I do consider you somewhat of a friend, with the email
we've exchanged over the years.  But sometimes you come out with things
that make me wonder whether you really understand the net, are shit disturbing
for fun, or have a cog or two missing. :-)

Alt groups are no less "available to the general public" than any
of the regular "big seven" newsgroups.  All you need to get them is
the appropriate software (which you already have) and someone willing
to feed you what you want.  Groups are carried based on a decision
made about perceived benefit versus cost.

It could just as easily been "comp.lang" instead of alt.sources that UW
decided that they didn't want to import.  By your reasoning, then,
"comp.lang.postscript" would "not be available to the general public", and
you'd probably be asking that everybody post comp.lang.postscript articles
to alt.sources.  This is no sillier than your original comments.

*Any* group could be restricted in this way.  Just because you don't
get alt.sources doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Sites restrict their feeds for a reason.  There is a *hell* of a lot
of news per day.  They decide on what to carry based on anticipated
loads.  It isn't just on which heirarchy it's under.  And
this implies some things that you may not realize...

Let's say, for example, that Kevin's postings consisted of a megabyte
posted weekly.  When a person decides to take alt.sources, they'll
(if they're smart) realize that that sort of load is to be expected
from alt.sources.  Comp.lang.postscript, on the other hand, can't
be reasonably expected to be that much load.   So people may decide
to take comp.lang.postscript but not alt.sources because of
assumptions about loading, perceived benefit, bandwidth considerations
etc.

If Kevin started posting his stuff to comp.lang.postscript (along
with a couple of dozen people posting PostScript pictures from
alt.binaries ;-), those assumptions go out the window.  People who're
carrying comp.lang.postscript but not alt.sources abruptly find out
that their assumptions are wrong.  They may even find out that it's
breaking their budget, whether money, diskspace or communications bandwidth.

What happens in such situations?  Guess what?  UW stops carrying
comp.lang.postscript.  Think about that.  Is that what you want?

[I should also point out that news feed sites tend to get very
pissed off when downstream people start trying to get around feed
policies in this fashion.  This is the same thing as finding out
that someone downstream of you just asked an MBAS for the complete
sources for X, and routed all 100Mb through your 3Mb spool space.]

This goes as well for a suggestion that you made earlier "they
should just make 'em all rec groups".  A truly sill idea.
What do you think that the response will be to that?  UW stops
carrying rec...

Have you politely asked UW for just alt.sources?  (instead of
all of alt).  I was in exactly the same situation as you -
news in this city comes from an internet-connected University
through a commercial site.  No alt groups.  Because, after all,
>95% of it is trash.  So we discussed it, and now we have a few.
Including alt.sources.

Postings should be made in the appropriate groups.  Large source
postings[*] belong in the appropriate source groups.  PostScript
discussions belong in c.l.p.  This is so that people can find things
where they're supposed to be.  And so that people can manage
resource utilitization by deciding what they'll carry.  Don't
play games trying to get around their decisions.  Persuade
UW to get alt.sources, get alt.sources from somewhere else,
or ask some kind soul to mail it to you on floppy, or even 
via email.

Kevin did precisely the right thing.  Posted it to alt.sources
plus pointers to where it is in c.l.p.  All you'd have to do
if you wanted it is to ask for it.

Maybe you'll get it this time Michael.  If not, let's take it
to email.

And if you want an alt.sources feed, I'll give you one for free.
No problem.

[*] I should point out that I got nasty mailgrams when I used to
post psroff patches to c.l.p.  Which is why I don't do that anymore.
Just pointers to the real postings _in the sources groups_
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca